Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Motors Insurance Corporation 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
motors-insurance-corporation
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Motors Insurance Corporation

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Jul 8, 2025

Motors Insurance Corporation vs. Autobot Towing, LLC

Appellant

Motors Insurance Corporation sued Autobot Towing, LLC for conversion after Autobot towed a truck owned by Insurer and later sold it for scrap to cover towing and storage fees. The circuit court found in favor of Insurer, awarding $35,015 in compensatory damages. On appeal, Autobot argued it complied with abandoned property statutes and that the damages were not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Autobot failed to comply with the statutory notice and disposal requirements, and that the damage award was supported by substantial evidence.