Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Mary Spencer, et al. 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
mary-spencer-et-al
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Mary Spencer, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Sep 25, 2018

Mary Spencer, et al., Appellant, vs. Hartford Casualty, et al., Respondent.

Appellant

Mary Spencer and other nursing students sued Saint Louis College of Health Careers (SLCHC) under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, alleging deceptive practices regarding their degree program. After obtaining a judgment against SLCHC, Appellants brought an equitable garnishment action against SLCHC's insurer, Hartford Casualty Insurance, arguing Hartford breached its duty to defend. The trial court granted summary judgment for Hartford, finding the underlying petition did not allege a claim potentially within the policy's coverage. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the failure to award an educational degree and the resulting monetary loss did not constitute "property damage" under the insurance policy.