Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
american-fidelity-assurance-company
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Insurance Bad Faith
Archive note: 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Sep 17, 2020

VANESSA HARTWELL, Appellant vs. AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent

Respondent

Vanessa Hartwell appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of American Fidelity Assurance Company on her claims for breach of insurance contract and vexatious refusal to pay. Hartwell contended the insurance policy was ambiguous and that AFA failed to make a prima facie showing for summary judgment. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, finding no ambiguity in the policy but concluding that AFA failed to establish its right to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 74.04(c) and that the vexatious refusal claim was derivative.