Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

St. Louis Trimming, Inc. v. American Credit Indemnity Company, a Company of the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided May 20, 1997No. 96-2655EMPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFloyd R. Gibson, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent. Unlike the majority, I am unable to agree with the district court that, as a matter of law, the insurance policy issued by American Credit Indemnity Company (“American Credit”) to St. Louis Trimming (“SLT”) provided no coverage for the loss in question. Consequently, I would reverse the district court’s entry of summary judgment dismissing counts one through three of SLT’s Complaint. Nonetheless, because I am satisfied that SLT did not plead a viable cause of action for conversion, I concur in the portion of the majority’s opinion that affirms the dismissal of count…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Holland Corp., Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1989
  2. STATE EX REL SHELTER MUT. INS. CO. v. CrouchMissouri Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. St. Louis Trimming, Inc. v. American Credit Indemnity Co.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API