Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff- 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
progressive-preferred-insurance-company-plaintiff
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Jeffrey Mason, an injured party, appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Progressive Preferred Insurance Company in a declaratory judgment action. Mason sought an additional $50,000 in liability coverage from a Progressive automobile policy issued to Terry and Matthew Ozborn, claiming the policy provided operator's liability coverage for Terry's vehicle not involved in the accident. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the policy's unambiguous anti-stacking language limited liability to a single payment, and the policy satisfied the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.