Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Vera Worley 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
vera-worley
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Vera Worley

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jun 26, 2018

Vera Worley, Appellant, vs. Cornerstone National Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appellant

Vera Worley appealed a summary judgment in favor of Cornerstone National Insurance Company regarding her claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. The dispute centered on whether the UIM limit of liability section of her policy was ambiguous, allowing Cornerstone to reduce the $100,000 UIM coverage by the $50,000 Worley received from the tortfeasor's insurer. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the policy ambiguous because it promised a $100,000 limit but then included a set-off provision that would prevent the insurer from ever paying the full amount, and construed the policy in favor of Worley, entitling her to the full UIM limit.