Legal Opinion

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Carney

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided July 27, 1993No. 62871PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PUDLOWSKI, Judge.

Appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) filed a petition for declaratory judgment to determine its obligations under an automobile insurance policy. On motions for summary judgment, the trial court found that State Farm was obligated under a policy to defend and indemnify Paul Bowden, personal representative of the estate of Richard Bowden, and Thomas and Kathy Reames. State Farm appeals arguing that the trial court erred in determining that the policy required providing defense and indemnification. We affirm.

Thomas and Kathy Reames owned a 1977…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Rodriguez v. General Accident Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1991
  2. Krombach v. Mayflower Ins. Co., Ltd.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1992
  3. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. WardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1990
  4. Behr v. Blue Cross Hospital Service, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1986
  5. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. v. BrooksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1985

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. BallmerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1995
  2. Progressive Northwestern Insurance Co. v. TalbertMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. Killian v. TharpMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. Cameron Mutual Insurance Co. v. MarlerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. Marchand ex rel. Marchand v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1999

3 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