{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"auto-accident","label":"Auto Accident","description":null,"totalCases":55,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":1,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":6},{"year":2019,"count":5},{"year":2020,"count":10},{"year":2021,"count":10},{"year":2022,"count":7},{"year":2023,"count":9},{"year":2024,"count":5},{"year":2025,"count":1},{"year":2026,"count":2}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38943:2026-01-12","opinionId":"86c3bbfe-b6a8-5c30-96cb-abc609e0ae93","slug":"kac-by-and-through-ashley-acosta-next-friend-and-michael-crites-jr-appell-d38943","caseName":"K.A.C. by and through, ASHLEY ACOSTA, NEXT FRIEND, and MICHAEL CRITES, JR., Appellants\nv.\nMISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38943","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-12","year":2026,"display_summary":"Appellants K.A.C. and Michael Crites, Jr. sued the Missouri State Highway Patrol for wrongful death after a pursued driver collided with and killed Connor Crites. The trial court granted summary judgment for MSHP, finding Appellants failed to establish proximate cause. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Appellants did not produce sufficient facts to prove MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, consistent with Supreme Court precedent that proximate cause cannot be based on speculation in police pursuit cases.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","summary-judgment","wrongful-death","governmental-immunity","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229813","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kac-by-and-through-ashley-acosta-next-friend-and-michael-crites-jr-appell-d38943","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86697:2025-05-20","opinionId":"a6d944b0-8d34-59d6-9f12-bc626d100210","slug":"midwest-trust-co-as-conservator-for-kp-v-united-parcel-service-inc-d86697","caseName":"Midwest Trust Co. as Conservator for K.P.\nvs. \nUnited Parcel Service, Inc.","caseNumber":"WD86697","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-05-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Midwest Trust Co., as conservator for K.P., sued United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) for in utero injuries K.P. sustained in a car accident caused by a UPS driver. The jury awarded K.P. $65 million in compensatory damages on a vicarious liability negligence claim, and the circuit court added prejudgment interest. UPS appealed, challenging the admission of evidence regarding the driver's prior cocaine use and the award of prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary ruling and no error in the prejudgment interest award.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","negligence","evidence","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220713","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/midwest-trust-co-as-conservator-for-kp-v-united-parcel-service-inc-d86697","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112692:2024-10-22","opinionId":"ff96c0f2-2725-5dac-b9fc-39dd9681844f","slug":"clayton-childers-appellant-v-noah-williams-respondent-112692","caseName":"Clayton Childers, Appellant, vs. Noah Williams, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112692","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-22","year":2024,"display_summary":"Clayton Childers appealed a jury verdict in favor of Noah Williams following a vehicular collision. Childers contended the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his involvement in a motor vehicle race and a bet on that race, which occurred on a separate highway prior to and unconnected to the collision. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the admission of such evidence was inflammatory and prejudicial, warranting a new trial, because it was not relevant to the collision.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","evidence","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213838","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/clayton-childers-appellant-v-noah-williams-respondent-112692","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111241:2024-03-26","opinionId":"e7b9fd2b-5ee1-5514-8a68-bdf58e699beb","slug":"carrie-s-schultz-and-robert-c-schultz-sr-surviving-parents-of-robert-c-sc-111241","caseName":"Carrie S. Schultz and Robert C. Schultz, Sr., surviving parents of Robert C. Schultz, Jr., deceased, Respondents, vs. Great Plains Trucking, Inc. and Lennis H. Beck, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED111241","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Carrie S. Schultz and Robert C. Schultz, Sr., parents of the deceased Robert C. Schultz, Jr., brought a wrongful death action against Great Plains Trucking, Inc. and its driver, Lennis H. Beck, following a fatal vehicular crash. After a jury trial awarded the plaintiffs compensatory and aggravating circumstances damages, the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the exclusion of expert testimony, the allowance of separate counsel, the jury instructions, or the submission of aggravating circumstances damages.","primaryTopic":"wrongful-death","topicSlugs":["wrongful-death","auto-accident","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206694","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carrie-s-schultz-and-robert-c-schultz-sr-surviving-parents-of-robert-c-sc-111241","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111694:2024-01-30","opinionId":"89c26fd7-bdd3-53f5-afee-0bac25554242","slug":"john-carlton-appellant-v-brandon-means-respondent-111694","caseName":"John Carlton, Appellant, vs. Brandon Means, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111694","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"John Carlton sued Officer Brandon Means for personal injuries sustained in a vehicular collision, alleging negligence or malice. The trial court granted summary judgment for Officer Means, concluding he was entitled to official immunity. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the malice exception to official immunity did not apply because there were no facts demonstrating Officer Means acted with the requisite intent to injure or prejudice Carlton, even if his conduct was reckless.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","auto-accident","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-carlton-appellant-v-brandon-means-respondent-111694","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37797:2023-12-19","opinionId":"cc9fef47-ee9d-57a1-9caa-1702e8d955d1","slug":"terry-mccroskey-tom-mccroskey-brent-mccroskey-dwayne-mccroskey-cherie-hob-d37797","caseName":"TERRY MCCROSKEY, TOM MCCROSKEY, BRENT MCCROSKEY, DWAYNE MCCROSKEY, CHERIE HOBSON, individually, and CHERIE HOBSON as Next Friend for L.H., a minor, and BETH MURPHY, as Next Friend for C.M., a minor, Plaintiffs-Respondents\nv.\nRAJINDER SINGH, et al., Defendants-Appellants","caseNumber":"SD37797","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"The McCroskeys sued Next Stop C-Stores, LLC, Balwinder Singh, and Gurminder Singh for wrongful death and negligence after Patricia McCroskey was killed in an auto accident involving Rajinder Singh, an alleged employee. The trial court entered an interlocutory default judgment against the defendants for failing to timely respond to the petition. The defendants appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to set aside the default judgment. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that the defendants failed to show good cause for their untimely response.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence","wrongful-death","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203736","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/terry-mccroskey-tom-mccroskey-brent-mccroskey-dwayne-mccroskey-cherie-hob-d37797","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37373:2023-08-04","opinionId":"d93924d1-438e-5da9-b5f7-8fb9f52bd3a4","slug":"state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-benny-lynn-johnson-defendant-app-d37373","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nBENNY LYNN JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37373","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-04","year":2023,"display_summary":"Benny Lynn Johnson was convicted of three counts of driving while intoxicated resulting in death and two counts of leaving the scene of an accident. On appeal, Johnson argued that his two convictions for leaving the scene of an accident violated double jeopardy and that the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial due to juror misconduct. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no double jeopardy violation because each distinct impact constituted a separate accident under the statute, and no abuse of discretion regarding the juror's brief, unrelated conversation with a witness.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","auto-accident","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=198255","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-benny-lynn-johnson-defendant-app-d37373","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99700:2023-06-27","opinionId":"44d175f0-ef6e-515f-94df-b79e6f62fd07","slug":"susan-f-bridegan-appellant-v-gary-l-turntine-respondent-c99700","caseName":"Susan F. Bridegan, Appellant, vs. Gary L. Turntine, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99700","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-06-27","year":2023,"display_summary":"Susan Bridegan sued Gary Turntine for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Bridegan, an uninsured motorist, challenged the constitutionality of section 303.390 RSMo, which prohibits uninsured motorists from collecting noneconomic damages, arguing it violated her right to a jury trial. The circuit court rejected her constitutional argument and awarded her economic damages. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, declining to address the merits of the constitutional challenge because Bridegan failed to preserve the issue for appellate review by waiving her right to a jury trial.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","auto-accident","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196973","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/susan-f-bridegan-appellant-v-gary-l-turntine-respondent-c99700","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85014:2023-06-27","opinionId":"5030bbe3-bd4a-592e-933d-3b49a4a28cb0","slug":"marlayna-kenney-v-kailey-k-myers-d85014","caseName":"Marlayna Kenney\nvs.\nKailey K. Myers","caseNumber":"WD85014","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-06-27","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kailey K. Myers appealed a judgment in favor of Marlayna Kenney and Jayden Morgan on their wrongful death and personal injury claims, which arose from a motor vehicle accident. Myers argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence related to her liability, as she had admitted fault for the accident. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Myers' admission was not a clear and unequivocal admission of all specific allegations of negligence, and even with such an admission, plaintiffs retain the right to present relevant liability evidence. The court also found no outcome-determinative prejudice.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","evidence","civil-procedure","personal-injury","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196856","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/marlayna-kenney-v-kailey-k-myers-d85014","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111064:2023-06-20","opinionId":"27fe3e42-fcaf-522f-bc63-f5bfc0ba518c","slug":"barbara-s-thomas-appellant-v-emir-ramushi-respondent-111064","caseName":"Barbara S. Thomas, Appellant, vs. Emir Ramushi, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111064","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-20","year":2023,"display_summary":"Barbara S. Thomas sued Emir Ramushi for damages after a car accident where Ramushi admitted full liability. The trial court awarded Thomas $375.45 but allowed Ramushi a credit/set-off for $3,690.50, representing a payment from Ramushi's insurer (AAA) to Thomas's insurer (Liberty Mutual) for vehicle damage. The appellate court reversed, holding that Liberty Mutual lacked authority to settle Thomas's claims without her consent, and that allowing the credit violated the collateral source rule by impermissibly relying on evidence of payments from a collateral source.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","auto-accident","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196758","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/barbara-s-thomas-appellant-v-emir-ramushi-respondent-111064","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37445:2023-05-12","opinionId":"50452227-c4f7-5f9a-9dfd-617ae751a9e0","slug":"charlotte-wright-plaintiff-appellant-v-arturo-marrufo-armijo-defendant-re-d37445","caseName":"CHARLOTTE WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv\nARTURO MARRUFO ARMIJO, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37445","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"Charlotte Wright sued Arturo Marrufo Armijo for negligence following a car accident, seeking damages for both personal injuries and property damage. The trial court found in Wright's favor on her negligence claim but awarded only property damages, declining to award damages for personal injuries. On appeal, Wright argued the judgment was inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court was not required to believe Wright's uncontradicted testimony regarding her personal injuries and that her failure to prove these damages made the judgment consistent.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","auto-accident","negligence","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195394","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/charlotte-wright-plaintiff-appellant-v-arturo-marrufo-armijo-defendant-re-d37445","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37398:2023-04-11","opinionId":"01e0d796-e9f5-5600-a5db-121804f25a8a","slug":"vivian-badillo-appellant-v-the-home-city-ice-company-and-myles-mathis-res-d37398","caseName":"VIVIAN BADILLO, Appellant\nvs.\nTHE HOME CITY ICE COMPANY, and MYLES MATHIS, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37398","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-11","year":2023,"display_summary":"Vivian Badillo was injured in an auto accident caused by Myles Mathis, an employee of The Home City Ice Company. Badillo sued Mathis for negligence and Home City Ice for negligence based on respondeat superior, seeking punitive damages against both. The trial court excluded evidence related to Home City Ice's hiring, training, and policies, finding it irrelevant to a punitive damages claim based solely on vicarious liability. The jury awarded compensatory damages but denied punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence because it was not relevant to a punitive damages claim based only on vicarious liability.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","negligence","civil-procedure","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194393","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/vivian-badillo-appellant-v-the-home-city-ice-company-and-myles-mathis-res-d37398","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110432:2023-02-28","opinionId":"a4de1093-dd22-5ea0-88ca-26f5fa9c7331","slug":"progressive-casualty-insurance-company-respondent-v-kenneth-moore-appella-110432","caseName":"Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Respondent, vs. Kenneth Moore, Appellant, and Lashun Givands, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110432","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-02-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kenneth Moore appealed from a circuit court judgment in an interpleader action, which incorporated a prior summary judgment against him on negligence and wrongful death crossclaims related to a motor vehicle incident. The appellate court dismissed Moore's appeal, finding that his brief failed to comply with mandatory appellate briefing rules, particularly Rule 84.04, by not presenting any points relied on. This failure precluded the court from conducting a meaningful review, and the court declined to impose sanctions for a frivolous appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","wrongful-death","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192820","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/progressive-casualty-insurance-company-respondent-v-kenneth-moore-appella-110432","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85260:2023-01-17","opinionId":"bbe65eba-26ce-598c-a518-a8ea4a679b01","slug":"michael-walsh-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-and-sheryl-d85260","caseName":"Michael Walsh \nvs. \nState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Sheryl Craig","caseNumber":"WD85260","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-01-17","year":2023,"display_summary":"Michael Walsh and Sheryl Craig appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in an equitable garnishment proceeding. Walsh had obtained a large judgment against Craig following a motor vehicle accident, and State Farm, Craig's insurer, paid its policy limit. Walsh and Craig sought additional post-judgment interest, arguing the policy required State Farm to pay interest on the full underlying judgment until satisfied. The appellate court affirmed, holding that State Farm's obligation to pay post-judgment interest terminated when it paid its liability coverage limit, and the policy language was unambiguous.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191735","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-walsh-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-and-sheryl-d85260","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110325:2022-10-11","opinionId":"ed757423-cbed-59d5-8be2-c29671a71ed2","slug":"jemerio-harris-and-jacqueline-armstrong-plaintiffsappellants-v-city-of-st-110325","caseName":"Jemerio Harris and Jacqueline Armstrong, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. City of St. Louis, Missouri, James Zwilling, Michael Scego, and Timothy Boyce, Defendants/Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110325","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-10-11","year":2022,"display_summary":"Jemerio Harris and Jacqueline Armstrong appealed a judgment on the pleadings granted in favor of the City of St. Louis and several police officers. Appellants had filed wrongful death and negligence claims after a suspect, fleeing from the officers, caused a collision that resulted in a fatality and serious injuries. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the officers' conduct was not the proximate cause of the collision as a matter of law, consistent with established Missouri precedent on police pursuits.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","wrongful-death","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189794","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jemerio-harris-and-jacqueline-armstrong-plaintiffsappellants-v-city-of-st-110325","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37181:2022-09-30","opinionId":"e733994d-d8ff-5c03-a247-6ce237bda0b5","slug":"daniel-woodgate-and-tanya-woodgate-respondents-v-st-james-winery-inc-and-d37181","caseName":"DANIEL WOODGATE and TANYA WOODGATE, Respondents\nvs.\nST. JAMES WINERY, INC. and RAUL R. ESPINOZA, Appellants","caseNumber":"SD37181","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-09-30","year":2022,"display_summary":"Daniel and Tanya Woodgate sued St. James Winery and its employee, Raul Espinoza, for injuries Mr. Woodgate sustained in a motorcycle accident caused by Espinoza. After a jury awarded the Woodgates $12.8 million, the defendants appealed, alleging errors in the admission of expert testimony and the denial of a mistrial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in either ruling.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","personal-injury","evidence","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/daniel-woodgate-and-tanya-woodgate-respondents-v-st-james-winery-inc-and-d37181","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84700:2022-08-16","opinionId":"001ea0ce-df5a-527a-a144-c965cd1253ca","slug":"ruben-vasquez-v-director-of-revenue-d84700","caseName":"Ruben Vasquez\nvs. \nDirector of Revenue","caseNumber":"WD84700","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-08-16","year":2022,"display_summary":"Ruben Vasquez appealed the suspension of his driving privileges by the Director of Revenue, which was affirmed by the trial court after a bench trial. Vasquez argued there was insufficient evidence of probable cause for his arrest for driving while intoxicated, specifically regarding his intoxication at the time of the automobile accident. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the totality of the circumstances, including Vasquez's admissions, physical signs of intoxication, and the nature of the accident, provided sufficient probable cause for arrest, even without an exact time of the accident.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","administrative-law","standard-of-review","evidence","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188513","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ruben-vasquez-v-director-of-revenue-d84700","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37105:2022-07-29","opinionId":"6ea22d63-521f-5706-b4de-b3a6b8b3c1c6","slug":"mp-a-minor-by-and-through-amanda-zipfel-as-next-friend-appellant-v-trexis-d37105","caseName":"M.P., a minor, by and through AMANDA ZIPFEL, as Next Friend, Appellant\nvs.\nTREXIS ONE INS. COPR., f/k/a ALFA SPECIALTY INS. CORP., Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37105","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-07-29","year":2022,"display_summary":"M.P., a minor, sought uninsured motorist coverage from Trexis One Insurance Corporation after being injured by a golf cart in a private RV park. The trial court denied relief, finding that the golf cart was designed for off-road use and the accident did not occur on a \"public road\" as defined in the policy. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly applied the plain and ordinary meaning of \"public road\" and that M.P. failed to prove the accident occurred on such a road.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","auto-accident","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188233","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mp-a-minor-by-and-through-amanda-zipfel-as-next-friend-appellant-v-trexis-d37105","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110232:2022-04-19","opinionId":"65eac281-7dde-5b36-9cc9-70475c8fee84","slug":"kristine-hill-and-dennis-hill-relators-v-honorable-stanley-j-wallach-resp-110232","caseName":"Kristine Hill and Dennis Hill, Relators, v. Honorable Stanley J. Wallach, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110232","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-04-19","year":2022,"display_summary":"Kristine and Dennis Hill (Relators) sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the enforcement of a trial court order compelling them to produce settlement documents from a prior automobile accident. The Relators argued these documents were protected work product and that the opposing party, Mercy Rehabilitation Hospital, failed to show a substantial need for them. The appellate court agreed, finding that the settlement documents were tangible work product and Mercy failed to meet the burden of demonstrating substantial need and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means. The court made its preliminary order in prohibition permanent, directing the trial court to vacate its order.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","evidence","personal-injury","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186261","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kristine-hill-and-dennis-hill-relators-v-honorable-stanley-j-wallach-resp-110232","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109819:2022-02-15","opinionId":"508e41a6-9972-5139-98cd-60613f56ac4d","slug":"great-west-casualty-company-appellant-v-deborah-carr-et-al-respondents-109819","caseName":"Great West Casualty Company, Appellant, vs. Deborah Carr, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED109819","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-02-15","year":2022,"display_summary":"Great West Casualty Company initiated an interpleader action to distribute $1 million in insurance proceeds following a multi-vehicle accident. The circuit court dismissed Great West from the action without prejudice, prompting Great West to appeal, arguing the dismissal should have been with prejudice. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that Great West failed to preserve the issue for review by not filing a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 78.07(c).","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","insurance","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=184401","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/great-west-casualty-company-appellant-v-deborah-carr-et-al-respondents-109819","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37132:2022-01-18","opinionId":"1e5f6874-ee1b-559a-8168-192eadb2ad58","slug":"nancy-fisher-respondent-v-marcus-fusco-respondent-and-state-farm-mutual-a-d37132","caseName":"NANCY FISHER, Respondent\nvs.\nMARCUS FUSCO, Respondent and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE CO., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37132","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-01-18","year":2022,"display_summary":"State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an intervenor in a tort action, appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to enforce a purported settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. The appellate court dismissed State Farm's appeal, holding that State Farm lacked standing because it was not \"aggrieved\" by the trial court's ruling. The court reasoned that an insurer's obligation to pay is triggered only after the tortfeasor's liability is established, and thus, the denial of the motion to enforce had no immediate prejudicial impact on State Farm's rights or interests.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","insurance","contracts","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183615","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/nancy-fisher-respondent-v-marcus-fusco-respondent-and-state-farm-mutual-a-d37132","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99139:2021-12-21","opinionId":"00bbff18-4612-5fac-8961-78351a2126c0","slug":"state-ex-rel-darin-lutman-relator-v-the-honorable-m-brandon-baker-respond-c99139","caseName":"State ex rel. Darin Lutman, Relator, vs. The Honorable M. Brandon Baker, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99139","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-12-21","year":2021,"display_summary":"Darin Lutman sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the release of his medical records from two health networks, arguing they were protected by physician-patient privilege. The circuit court had ordered the disclosure of these records in a wrongful death and personal injury suit filed against Lutman after a fatal auto accident. The Missouri Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that Lutman's statements to police and in an apology letter did not constitute an implied waiver of the privilege, as they did not show a clear, unequivocal purpose to divulge confidential medical information. The Court also clarified that a writ of prohibition remains appropriate even if records have been disclosed, as a partial remedy can be ordered.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","evidence","personal-injury","wrongful-death","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182828","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-darin-lutman-relator-v-the-honorable-m-brandon-baker-respond-c99139","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84018:2021-08-24","opinionId":"41239929-fc7e-5132-b8d0-844bda9746f6","slug":"courtney-jones-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-company-si-d84018","caseName":"Courtney Jones\nvs. \nAmerican Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I.","caseNumber":"WD84018","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-08-24","year":2021,"display_summary":"Courtney Jones was injured in an auto accident with an uninsured motorist and sought additional uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under two American Family policies covering vehicles she was not driving. The trial court granted summary judgment for Jones, finding the owned-vehicle exclusion ambiguous and unenforceable. The appellate court reversed, holding that the owned-vehicle exclusion, when read with the minimum-financial-responsibility clause, unambiguously limited UM coverage for non-involved vehicles to the statutory minimum.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","auto-accident","summary-judgment","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=179775","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/courtney-jones-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-company-si-d84018","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109161:2021-06-22","opinionId":"aec05fdd-3873-509e-a876-3888f2eb65e8","slug":"clifton-jameson-appellant-v-alexis-still-respondent-109161","caseName":"Clifton Jameson, Appellant, vs. Alexis Still, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109161","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-06-22","year":2021,"display_summary":"Clifton Jameson appealed the summary judgment granted to Alexis Still, which enforced a purported settlement of Jameson's personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident. Jameson argued that Still's insurer, MetLife, rejected his May 20, 2019 settlement offer with a June 21, 2019 counteroffer, making the original offer unavailable for acceptance. Still contended that Jameson's offer, made pursuant to sections 408.040 and 537.058, was irrevocable and non-rejectable for 90 days. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that these statutes do not abrogate common law contract principles, and thus, MetLife's counteroffer rejected Jameson's original offer.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178076","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/clifton-jameson-appellant-v-alexis-still-respondent-109161","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109191:2021-05-25","opinionId":"95e77b17-63ec-5edd-8578-b699763ea153","slug":"james-purk-plaintiff-and-loretta-purk-respondent-v-farmers-insurance-comp-109191","caseName":"James Purk, Plaintiff, and Loretta Purk, Respondent, v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Appellant, and Christopher Wilson, Defendant.","caseNumber":"ED109191","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-05-25","year":2021,"display_summary":"Loretta Purk sued Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. for uninsured motorist (UM) coverage after she and her husband were injured in an auto accident with an uninsured driver. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Mrs. Purk, finding she was entitled to $300,000 in UM coverage under three Farmers policies. The appellate court reversed, holding that the policies were not ambiguous and that an owned-vehicle exclusion limited stacked UM coverage to $150,000, comprising $100,000 from the policy covering the accident vehicle and $25,000 from each of the other two policies, consistent with Missouri's Financial Responsibility Law.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177590","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-purk-plaintiff-and-loretta-purk-respondent-v-farmers-insurance-comp-109191","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109062:2021-04-27","opinionId":"897675a4-6a65-5e9b-b61f-64970df29c2c","slug":"kayla-hurley-appellant-v-karen-burton-respondent-109062","caseName":"Kayla Hurley, Appellant, v. Karen Burton, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109062","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-04-27","year":2021,"display_summary":"Kayla Hurley appealed a jury verdict of $15,000 in damages from Karen Burton following a motor vehicle accident, arguing the trial court made several errors during the proceedings. Hurley claimed the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial, refusing curative instructions, excluding rebuttal evidence, allowing certain medical treatment evidence, and excluding a prior abandoned pleading for impeachment. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in any of the challenged rulings.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177036","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kayla-hurley-appellant-v-karen-burton-respondent-109062","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83788:2021-03-09","opinionId":"54af305a-86a9-5bb5-998b-7eb7b6b44f0f","slug":"robert-morris-v-geico-casualty-company-et-al-d83788","caseName":"Robert Morris\nvs. \nGeico Casualty Company, et al","caseNumber":"WD83788","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-09","year":2021,"display_summary":"Robert Morris sued GEICO Casualty Company for vexatious refusal to pay uninsured motorist benefits after a rear-end collision. The circuit court granted summary judgment for GEICO, finding the offending vehicle was neither an \"uninsured motor vehicle\" nor a \"hit-and-run vehicle\" as defined by the GEICO policy, and that Morris's claims were barred by the election of remedies doctrine. The appellate court affirmed, holding that because the owner of the vehicle was identified and their insurer agreed to cover operator negligence, GEICO was not required to provide uninsured motorist coverage, thereby negating the vexatious refusal claim.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","auto-accident","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-morris-v-geico-casualty-company-et-al-d83788","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108519:2021-03-09","opinionId":"848a6a28-3731-5aa5-b639-a4bc596d5576","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-timothy-a-shepherd-appellant-108519","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Timothy A. Shepherd, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED108519","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-03-09","year":2021,"display_summary":"Timothy A. Shepherd appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a habitual offender, following a bench trial. He argued there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that he was a habitual offender, specifically challenging the use of out-of-state driving records and the interpretation of his prior Colorado convictions. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that certified driving records from other states are permissible evidence and that his prior Colorado convictions qualified as intoxication-related traffic offenses under Missouri law.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","auto-accident","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=176742","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-timothy-a-shepherd-appellant-108519","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83345:2021-03-02","opinionId":"ca1fef6a-9f01-5308-a764-e88e7e36d89c","slug":"sylvia-norman-v-progressive-preferred-insurance-company-amber-ralston-d83345","caseName":"Sylvia Norman\nvs. \nProgressive Preferred Insurance Company,\nAmber Ralston","caseNumber":"WD83345","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-02","year":2021,"display_summary":"Sylvia Norman's husband was killed in an automobile accident with Amber Ralston, who was insured by Progressive. Norman obtained a wrongful death judgment against Ralston, and Progressive tendered its policy limits but not all interest and costs. Norman then filed an equitable garnishment action against Progressive, alleging it failed to pay all interest and court costs owed under the policy. The trial court granted summary judgment to Progressive. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that Progressive's conditional settlement offer did not terminate its obligation to pay prejudgment interest, but affirmed that Progressive had paid all taxed court costs and that its payment of the bodily injury limit terminated its obligation for post-judgment interest.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","auto-accident","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174180","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sylvia-norman-v-progressive-preferred-insurance-company-amber-ralston-d83345","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108712:2021-02-16","opinionId":"9be898eb-e6fa-5985-8447-750c5703599d","slug":"michael-scobee-and-linda-scobee-plaintiffsrespondents-v-lauren-norris-as-108712","caseName":"Michael Scobee and Linda Scobee, Plaintiffs/Respondents, vs. Lauren Norris, as Defendant Ad Litem for William Norris, Defendant/Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED108712","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-02-16","year":2021,"display_summary":"Michael and Linda Scobee sued William Norris for personal injuries from a motor vehicle accident. After Norris's death, Lauren Norris was substituted as defendant ad litem. A jury awarded $7 million, but the defendant ad litem moved to reduce the judgment to the decedent's $100,000 insurance policy limit and to amend the judgment to disallow future bad faith claims. The trial court denied both motions. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Section 537.021 does not require reducing a jury award to policy limits in a tort action, and that the bad faith claim issue was not ripe for adjudication.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=173535","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-scobee-and-linda-scobee-plaintiffsrespondents-v-lauren-norris-as-108712","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83723:2021-02-09","opinionId":"9bfdc2ef-fe2e-5ccc-9028-eb21e048d580","slug":"collin-m-stosberg-v-electric-insurance-company-d83723","caseName":"Collin M. Stosberg\nvs.\nElectric Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD83723","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-02-09","year":2021,"display_summary":"Collin M. Stosberg, a Missouri State Highway Patrol sergeant, sought Uninsured Motorist (UM) benefits from Electric Insurance Company after being injured by an uninsured motorcyclist during a DUI checkpoint. The trial court granted summary judgment for Electric on three independent grounds: the injuries did not arise out of the use of the uninsured motor vehicle, a workers' compensation exclusion applied, and public policy precluded UM coverage. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, finding that Stosberg's injuries did arise from the use of the motorcycle, the exclusion did not apply because Electric was not a \"third person\" for subrogation, and no public policy prevented UM coverage for law enforcement officers. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","workers-compensation","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=173355","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/collin-m-stosberg-v-electric-insurance-company-d83723","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108488:2020-12-22","opinionId":"27df7f3e-62ad-5f0c-b100-5e93dfe03991","slug":"donald-j-marcks-appellant-v-edward-w-wilson-respondent-108488","caseName":"Donald J. Marcks, Appellant, vs. Edward W. Wilson, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108488","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-12-22","year":2020,"display_summary":"Donald J. Marcks appealed the denial of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for additur, or for a new trial following a jury verdict in his personal injury lawsuit against Edward W. Wilson. Marcks alleged juror misconduct and that the jury's $1.00 damage award was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motions.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","personal-injury","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=170678","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donald-j-marcks-appellant-v-edward-w-wilson-respondent-108488","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108947:2020-11-17","opinionId":"113d4d02-9f94-5acb-a421-fad3115a3db8","slug":"james-p-kahn-appellant-v-triston-blackwell-respondent-108947","caseName":"James P. Kahn, Appellant, vs. Triston Blackwell, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108947","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-11-17","year":2020,"display_summary":"James P. Kahn sued Triston Blackwell for injuries sustained in an automobile collision, and a jury awarded Kahn $10,000. Kahn appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial, alleging jury misconduct, and the trial court's order that each party bear their own costs. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the new trial motion, finding Kahn waived the misconduct claim by not raising it before the verdict. However, the court reversed the cost order, holding that Kahn, as the prevailing party, was entitled to recover costs, and remanded for a determination of those costs.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","auto-accident","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=169200","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-p-kahn-appellant-v-triston-blackwell-respondent-108947","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83002:2020-09-15","opinionId":"c3d18777-25a7-5af6-bc27-2abd66650f06","slug":"marlon-price-and-michelle-price-v-shirley-thompson-and-young-america-insu-d83002","caseName":"Marlon Price and Michelle Price\nvs. \nShirley Thompson, \nand\nYoung America Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD83002","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-09-15","year":2020,"display_summary":"Marlon and Michelle Price sued Shirley Thompson for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident where Thompson's car, driven by Earnest Davis, collided with Marlon Price's motorcycle. The trial court found Thompson vicariously liable for Davis's negligence and awarded damages to both Marlon and Michelle Price. Thompson's insurer, Young America Insurance Company, intervened and appealed the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Young America had standing to appeal and that a principal/agent relationship existed between Thompson and Davis, making Thompson vicariously liable for Davis's negligence. The court also affirmed the loss of consortium award to Michelle Price.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","negligence","insurance","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=165836","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/marlon-price-and-michelle-price-v-shirley-thompson-and-young-america-insu-d83002","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108315:2020-08-11","opinionId":"b041fa79-5cab-5504-aa0a-87f7ca8bc11f","slug":"lisa-hearn-and-daniel-hearn-appellants-v-abf-freight-system-inc-responden-108315","caseName":"Lisa Hearn and Daniel Hearn, Appellants, vs. ABF Freight System, Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108315","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-08-11","year":2020,"display_summary":"Lisa and Daniel Hearn appealed a jury verdict in favor of ABF Freight System, Inc. on their negligence and loss of consortium claims, stemming from a motor vehicle accident involving an unidentified truck bearing ABF signage. The Hearns argued that the trial court erred by denying their motion for a directed verdict and by improperly instructing the jury on traditional agency principles, contending the logo-liability doctrine should have applied. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the logo-liability doctrine was inapplicable because the Hearns failed to present evidence that ABF operated as a carrier-lessee, a prerequisite for the doctrine's application.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","negligence","civil-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=163778","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lisa-hearn-and-daniel-hearn-appellants-v-abf-freight-system-inc-responden-108315","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36253:2020-07-28","opinionId":"0eb9bcfa-a45f-5b02-81e0-bd241bc24e5f","slug":"george-arnold-and-kristina-arnold-plaintiffs-respondents-v-farm-bureau-to-d36253","caseName":"GEORGE ARNOLD and KRISTINA ARNOLD, Plaintiffs-Respondents\nv.\nFARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36253","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-07-28","year":2020,"display_summary":"George and Kristina Arnold had an automobile insurance policy with Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri that included underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. After George was injured in a collision and received workers' compensation benefits, Farm Bureau declined to pay UIM benefits due to a workers' compensation offset provision in the policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Arnolds, finding the offset ambiguous. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the workers' compensation offset provision unambiguously reduced the UIM coverage to zero, and remanded with directions to grant Farm Bureau's motion for summary judgment.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","auto-accident","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=163194","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/george-arnold-and-kristina-arnold-plaintiffs-respondents-v-farm-bureau-to-d36253","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108179:2020-06-23","opinionId":"cb13d881-a501-5c95-87b8-0a3e0fea58b0","slug":"gary-veal-respondent-v-stacey-kelam-appellant-108179","caseName":"Gary Veal, Respondent, vs. Stacey Kelam, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED108179","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-06-23","year":2020,"display_summary":"Gary Veal sued Stacey Kelam for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, and a jury awarded Veal $2.5 million. Kelam appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying her motion for new trial due to alleged bias during voir dire, that the verdict was excessive, and that her counsel was improperly restricted during closing arguments. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in any of Kelam's points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","appellate-procedure","personal-injury","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=162233","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gary-veal-respondent-v-stacey-kelam-appellant-108179","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36424:2020-06-01","opinionId":"acfe90b7-1260-52d6-a5da-38ea7494b334","slug":"usaa-general-indemnity-company-respondent-v-ronald-c-prater-deann-rae-tho-d36424","caseName":"USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Respondent\nvs.\nRONALD C. PRATER, DEANN RAE THOMPSON, GWENDALYN GONZALES, and LUCILLE CURTMAN, Appellants\nand\nDAKOTA BALL, by and through his Guardian ad litem, PATRICIA KECK, Defendant","caseNumber":"SD36424","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-06-01","year":2020,"display_summary":"USAA General Indemnity Company (GIC) sought a declaratory judgment that its policy did not cover an auto accident involving Dakota Ball, who was driving a vehicle not listed on his stepmother Christiana's GIC policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for GIC, applying a \"regular use\" exclusion. Appellants argued on appeal that the exclusion was invalid under Missouri's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) because it violated minimum operator's coverage requirements. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the MVFRL's operator's policy requirements did not apply to Dakota because he was not a \"person named as insured\" under Christiana's policy.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","auto-accident","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=158793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/usaa-general-indemnity-company-respondent-v-ronald-c-prater-deann-rae-tho-d36424","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35127:2020-05-12","opinionId":"32fb9e25-ee3b-5d42-9125-3a13af8bff1f","slug":"nora-beth-fairbanks-plaintiff-appellant-v-christopher-l-hendricks-defenda-d35127","caseName":"NORA BETH FAIRBANKS, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nCHRISTOPHER L. HENDRICKS, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35127","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-05-12","year":2020,"display_summary":"Nora Fairbanks sued Christopher Hendricks for injuries sustained in a multi-vehicle collision, alleging negligence. A jury found in favor of Hendricks. On appeal, Fairbanks argued the trial court erred by refusing to give a verdict director instruction that included a \"following too closely\" specification of negligence. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, finding that there was substantial evidence to support the \"following too closely\" theory and that the trial court's refusal to give the instruction was prejudicial error.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","negligence","jury-instructions","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=156496","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/nora-beth-fairbanks-plaintiff-appellant-v-christopher-l-hendricks-defenda-d35127","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98010:2020-05-12","opinionId":"13b2f67d-6c23-58ae-8d93-251e7fc931a5","slug":"denise-kappel-et-al-appellants-v-fredric-prater-respondent-c98010","caseName":"Denise Kappel, et al., Appellants, vs. Fredric Prater, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC98010","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2020-05-12","year":2020,"display_summary":"Denise Kappel and her husband sued Fredric Prater for negligence following a car accident. The circuit court admitted photographs of Ms. Kappel's rental car over their objection. The jury found Dr. Prater liable but awarded significantly less in damages than sought. The Kappels appealed, arguing the photographs were irrelevant. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the admission of the photographs without expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","auto-accident","negligence","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=156473","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/denise-kappel-et-al-appellants-v-fredric-prater-respondent-c98010","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36368:2020-05-05","opinionId":"1d4a10ed-f50e-5acc-bf7e-c86926591bf5","slug":"tim-johnson-appellant-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-re-d36368","caseName":"TIM JOHNSON, Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36368","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-05-05","year":2020,"display_summary":"Tim Johnson was involved in an automobile collision with an uninsured motorist and sought uninsured motorist (UM) coverage from State Farm under three separate policies. State Farm paid the UM limit under the policy for the vehicle involved in the accident but reduced coverage on two other policies, citing an owned-vehicle exclusion. Johnson sued for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay, arguing the exclusion was inapplicable, ambiguous, and against public policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for State Farm, and the appellate court affirmed, finding the exclusion unambiguous and consistent with Missouri law and public policy.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","auto-accident","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=156114","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tim-johnson-appellant-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-re-d36368","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-147395","opinionId":"8af7d677-c901-50f2-9a4c-de5ed54092d8","slug":"erin-thompson-and-clarence-bell-xavior-dydell-a-minor-by-and-through-his-d82589","caseName":"Erin Thompson and Clarence Bell, Xavior Dydell, A Minor, by and Through His Mother and Next Friend, Amber Dydell, Carissa Wilson and Karlo Ginn, Sr.\nvs.\nCity of St. Joseph, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD82589","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-12-17","year":2019,"display_summary":"Appellants, including injured passenger Xavior Dydell and wrongful death claimants, sued the City of St. Joseph after a fatal car accident on Riverside Road, alleging a dangerous condition due to an unmarked edge and a nine-inch drop-off. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, finding sovereign immunity was not waived. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the road's condition was a direct cause of the injuries and whether the driver's criminal acts constituted an intervening or superseding cause.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","auto-accident","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=147395","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/erin-thompson-and-clarence-bell-xavior-dydell-a-minor-by-and-through-his-d82589","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed107521:2019-11-05","opinionId":"f307b960-33a8-579f-844a-bf9c58e39c97","slug":"douglas-savage-et-al-respondents-v-peter-dittrich-appellant-107521","caseName":"Douglas Savage, et al., Respondents, v. Peter Dittrich, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED107521","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-11-05","year":2019,"display_summary":"Peter Dittrich (Appellant) filed a personal injury counterclaim against Douglas Savage and Waste Management (Respondents) following a car accident. The trial court granted summary judgment for Respondents, concluding Appellant could not prove proximate causation as a matter of law. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding Savage's contributing negligence, Appellant's alleged negligence per se, and the applicability of comparative fault, all of which should be determined by a jury.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","negligence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=146102","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/douglas-savage-et-al-respondents-v-peter-dittrich-appellant-107521","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81952:2019-06-25","opinionId":"981092de-1e17-53ba-bb51-3fba546418bb","slug":"cindy-lockhart-et-al-v-susan-carlyle-d81952","caseName":"Cindy Lockhart, et al\nvs.\nSusan Carlyle","caseNumber":"WD81952","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-06-25","year":2019,"display_summary":"Cindy and Dennis Lockhart sued Susan Carlyle for the wrongful death of their son, Tyler Lockhart, alleging negligent entrustment of a vehicle to Carlyle's adult son, Richard Gallagher. The trial court granted summary judgment for Carlyle, finding she did not entrust the vehicle. The appellate court affirmed, holding that merely providing financial assistance for a vehicle's purchase, without ownership or control, does not constitute entrustment. The court also rejected a general negligence claim, stating that a parent-adult child relationship alone does not create a duty to protect third parties.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","wrongful-death","summary-judgment","auto-accident","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=141396","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cindy-lockhart-et-al-v-susan-carlyle-d81952","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed106216:2019-05-28","opinionId":"50b0f21d-f995-57eb-9175-95e8124a63a5","slug":"denise-kappel-and-william-kappel-appellants-v-frederic-pratter-respondent-106216","caseName":"Denise Kappel and William Kappel, Appellants, vs. Frederic Pratter, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED106216","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-05-28","year":2019,"display_summary":"Denise Kappel sued Frederic Prater for negligence following a motor vehicle accident, with William Kappel joining for loss of consortium. The jury found Prater liable but awarded Mrs. Kappel reduced damages. On appeal, the Kappels argued the trial court erred by admitting irrelevant and prejudicial photographs of Mrs. Kappel's vehicle. The appellate court affirmed the finding of liability but reversed the damages award, remanding for a new trial solely on damages, finding the photographs were improperly admitted and influenced the jury's award.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","evidence","personal-injury","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=140674","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/denise-kappel-and-william-kappel-appellants-v-frederic-pratter-respondent-106216","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81506:2019-01-22","opinionId":"84d89c34-834d-5cf8-abd6-73bf1d088d15","slug":"u-haul-company-of-missouri-and-arcoa-risk-retention-group-inc-v-timothy-a-d81506","caseName":"U-Haul Company of Missouri and ARCOA Risk Retention Group, Inc.\nvs.\nTimothy Andre Carter, Christy Wilson-Finister, Davon Wilson, Keith L. Williams, Ashley Knight and Keith Dawson","caseNumber":"WD81506","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-01-22","year":2019,"display_summary":"U-Haul Company of Missouri and ARCOA Risk Retention Group appealed a summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action. The trial court found U-Haul and ARCOA were collaterally estopped from litigating insurance coverage questions related to an automobile collision, based on a prior personal injury lawsuit finding Carter negligently caused the collision. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the Respondents failed to establish that the insurers' refusal to defend was unjustified, which is a prerequisite for applying collateral estoppel to the coverage issues and requires consideration of the insurance policy terms.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","auto-accident","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=135855","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/u-haul-company-of-missouri-and-arcoa-risk-retention-group-inc-v-timothy-a-d81506","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81267:2018-09-25","opinionId":"628a7bfc-5491-549d-823f-5f61e519837c","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-karbino-william-deng-barac-d81267","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nKarbino William Deng Barac","caseNumber":"WD81267","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-09-25","year":2018,"display_summary":"Karbino William Deng Barac appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as an aggravated offender after a bench trial, arguing insufficient evidence to prove he operated the vehicle while intoxicated. Officer Hill found Barac slumped in a precariously parked vehicle on an interstate, with the key in the \"on\" position, no alcohol present, and a high blood alcohol content. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the temporal connection between Barac's operation of the vehicle and his intoxication.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=132493","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-karbino-william-deng-barac-d81267","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd80586:2018-08-28","opinionId":"463c843e-6161-50c9-b8e5-d70e8df9b108","slug":"steven-l-holdeman-et-al-v-phillip-stratman-et-al-d80586","caseName":"Steven L. Holdeman, et al\nvs.\nPhillip Stratman, et al","caseNumber":"WD80586","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-08-28","year":2018,"display_summary":"Philip Stratman appealed a jury verdict finding him 99% at fault for injuries Steven Holdeman sustained in a motor vehicle collision, which also awarded Mrs. Holdeman damages for loss of consortium. Stratman raised five points on appeal, all concerning the trial court's admission or exclusion of evidence. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in any of the challenged evidentiary rulings.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=129693","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/steven-l-holdeman-et-al-v-phillip-stratman-et-al-d80586","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd80565:2018-08-21","opinionId":"d65580fa-302c-5664-826f-360d3b3f3b2f","slug":"lori-kissinger-roger-kitchen-and-the-estate-of-megan-elizabeth-kitchen-de-d80565","caseName":"Lori Kissinger, Roger Kitchen and The Estate of Megan Elizabeth Kitchen, Deceased\nvs.\nAmerican Family Mutual Insurance Company and American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin","caseNumber":"WD80565","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-08-21","year":2018,"display_summary":"Roger Kitchen and Lori Kissinger, divorced parents of Megan Kitchen who died in a car accident, sought underinsured motorist (UIM) and medical expense coverage from their respective insurance policies. The trial court issued a declaratory judgment regarding the stacking and reduction of these coverages under Illinois law for Kitchen's policies and Missouri law for Kissinger's policies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings for Kitchen's Illinois policies, concluding that UIM and medical expense coverages do not stack and UIM coverage is reduced by the full liability payment. For Kissinger's Missouri policies, the court reversed the finding that UIM coverage stacks, but affirmed that medical expense coverage stacks and UIM coverage is not reduced by the liability payment.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","auto-accident","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=131115","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lori-kissinger-roger-kitchen-and-the-estate-of-megan-elizabeth-kitchen-de-d80565","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc96740:2018-07-03","opinionId":"9fb46cc9-a7fc-5cf1-a4e3-3e6b87273cdb","slug":"ricky-griffitts-appellant-v-old-republic-insurance-company-bnsf-railway-c-c96740","caseName":"Ricky Griffitts, Appellant, vs. Old Republic Insurance Company, BNSF Railway Company, and James M. Campbell, Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC96740","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2018-07-03","year":2018,"display_summary":"Ricky Griffitts filed an equitable garnishment action against BNSF Railway Company and its insurer, Old Republic, seeking to collect on an unsatisfied judgment against James Campbell, a BNSF employee who rear-ended Griffitts while driving a company vehicle intoxicated. The circuit court found Campbell was not a permissive user under BNSF's insurance policy because he violated company rules regarding alcohol use. The Supreme Court of Missouri vacated the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the circuit court erroneously declared the law by conflating vehicle \"use\" and \"operation,\" and that Campbell's violation of rules related to \"operation\" did not negate his broad permission for \"use\" under the omnibus clause.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","contracts","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=127318","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ricky-griffitts-appellant-v-old-republic-insurance-company-bnsf-railway-c-c96740","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed105791:2018-06-12","opinionId":"8537e0e1-9fd2-51d1-828f-e384a59ef7c2","slug":"mark-porter-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-105791","caseName":"Mark Porter, Appellant vs. City of St. Louis, Respondent","caseNumber":"ED105791","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-06-12","year":2018,"display_summary":"Mark Porter sued the City of St. Louis for negligence after a car accident, alleging the City failed to repair a downed stop sign. Following a jury verdict for the City, Porter appealed, arguing the trial court erred by excluding a witness's prior inconsistent statements and by allowing the City to make prejudicial arguments outside the record during closing. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, finding that the City's closing argument was improper and prejudicial, but affirmed the trial court's rulings on the exclusion of prior inconsistent statements and the admission of an excited utterance.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","evidence","negligence","appellate-procedure","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=127053","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-porter-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-105791","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd80670:2018-04-17","opinionId":"4063d03b-ac59-558e-87b4-831436dab20a","slug":"david-stichler-heir-at-law-of-mickey-stichler-and-as-heir-at-law-of-unbor-d80670","caseName":"David Stichler, Heir at Law of Mickey Stichler and as Heir at Law of\nUnborn Child of Mickey Stichler\nvs.\nChaz David Jesiolowski and Fang-Piau Kao","caseNumber":"WD80670","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-04-17","year":2018,"display_summary":"David Stichler, father of Mickey Stichler, appealed the dismissal of his wrongful death petition for his unborn grandchild and the approval of a settlement between the alleged father, Jesiolowski, and Kao. The trial court determined Jesiolowski was the natural father, thus granting him standing to bring the claim and denying Stichler's request to be appointed plaintiff ad litem. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Stichler lacked standing to bring the wrongful death claim and to appeal the settlement as he was not a proper party to the action.","primaryTopic":"wrongful-death","topicSlugs":["wrongful-death","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","family-law","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=124676","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-stichler-heir-at-law-of-mickey-stichler-and-as-heir-at-law-of-unbor-d80670","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113479:undated","opinionId":"41f16b7f-d42c-5606-9f0e-ab32813b1b2e","slug":"terence-marks-respondent-v-city-of-st-louis-appellant-113479","caseName":"Terence Marks, Respondent, v. City of St. Louis, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113479","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2026,"display_summary":"Terence Marks sued the City of St. Louis for negligence after a motor vehicle accident with a City garbage truck. A jury found in favor of Marks, assessing 90% fault to the City and 10% to Marks, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly. The City appealed, challenging the admission of expert testimony, a statement during closing argument, the denial of a mistrial, and the refusal of a jury instruction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion or prejudicial error.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","negligence","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231976","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/terence-marks-respondent-v-city-of-st-louis-appellant-113479","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86688:undated","opinionId":"8841f576-75f2-53fb-89a6-43d7b2486f26","slug":"bryan-roy-escabusa-v-safe-auto-insurance-company-d86688","caseName":"Bryan Roy Escabusa\nvs.\nSafe Auto Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD86688","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Bryan Roy Escabusa appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to Safe Auto Insurance Company on his cross-claim for bad faith failure to settle. Escabusa argued that the circuit court made unsupported findings and that a genuine dispute of fact existed regarding Safe Auto's bad faith in rejecting a settlement opportunity within policy limits. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the challenged findings did not constitute reversible error and that Safe Auto did not act in bad faith because Mueller's purported settlement offer was not sufficiently definite.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215074","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bryan-roy-escabusa-v-safe-auto-insurance-company-d86688","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85966:undated","opinionId":"c3e56665-d989-5c6c-a6ba-d1e9f8ff6879","slug":"larhonda-johnson-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-company-si-d85966","caseName":"Larhonda Johnson\nvs. \nAmerican Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I.","caseNumber":"WD85966","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"LaRhonda Johnson was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from her insurer, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. American Family paid a reduced amount, claiming a setoff for payments Johnson received from the tortfeasor's insurers, while Johnson sought the full UIM limit. The trial court granted summary judgment for Johnson, finding the policy ambiguous, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the policy unambiguously provided for the setoff. The case was remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of American Family.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208382","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/larhonda-johnson-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-company-si-d85966","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]}]}