Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Metcalf

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided August 19, 1993No. 18424Published

1ConcurrenceShrum, Judge

Because of State Farm’s Point III relied on, I concur in the result.

In Point III State Farm correctly states that the party seeking a summary judgment has the affirmative burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Rule 74.04(c). See Earl v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 820 S.W.2d 623, 624[1] (Mo.App.1991). State Farm is also correct in observing that the issue purportedly resolved by the trial court’s summary judgment, that is, whether or not State Farm acted in bad faith in failing to defend or settle the wrongful death action against its insured, is…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Halpin v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1992
  2. Zumwalt v. Utilities InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1950
  3. Landie v. Century Indemnity CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1965
  4. Ganaway v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1990
  5. Dyer v. General American Life Insurance Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1976

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API