Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

GARY CHASTAIN and CASEY CHASTAIN 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
gary-chastain-and-casey-chastain
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 GARY CHASTAIN and CASEY CHASTAIN

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Gary and Casey Chastain appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to United Fire & Casualty Company on their equitable garnishment claim, stemming from the loss of their family videos by Lawrence Photo and Video, Inc. The Chastains argued the insurance policy was ambiguous and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the loss. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the insurance policy unambiguous in requiring both "Covered Property" and a "Covered Cause of Loss," which included a "physical evidence" limitation for missing property. The court also concluded that no genuine dispute of material fact existed, as the Chastains relied solely on testimonial evidence, which did not satisfy the policy's requirement for physical evidence of the loss.