Legal Opinion

Tate v. Golden Rule Insurance Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided July 13, 1993No. WD 46766PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BERREY, Judge.

Golden Rule Insurance Company appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered against it and in favor of Sharon Tate for attorney fees in the sum of $20,915.00. On July 23, 1989, Tate applied for health insurance from Golden Rule Insurance Company (“Golden Rule”) requesting a four month policy with coverage to begin on July 25, 1989. Golden Rule issued the policy as requested. The policy issued excluded coverage for any pre-existing conditions as defined in the policy. Tate testified that on July 27, 1989, she first experienced pain on the right side of her face. This caused her…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Murphy v. CarronSupreme Court of Missouri · 1976
  2. DeWitt v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1984
  3. Page v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1959
  4. Reed v. Sale Memorial Hospital & ClinicMissouri Court of Appeals · 1985
  5. Roark Motor Lodge Interval Sales Corp. v. LindnerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. David A. Kostelec v. State Farm Fire and Casualty CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
  2. Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2006
  3. Long v. Twehous Contractors, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1995
  4. Lapponese v. Carts of Colorado, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. Williams v. JacobsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998

5 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