Bader v. Padgett

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bader v. Padgett

294 S.W.3d 94, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1396, 2009 WL 3086426

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 29, 2009

DocketED 92652

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 294 S.W.3d 94 (Bader v. Padgett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bader v. Padgett, 294 S.W.3d 94, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1396, 2009 WL 3086426 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

*95 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Berryl Bader appeals the Judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable John F. Kintz presiding. Matthew Padgett was covered by an insurance policy from State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. Bader obtained a Judgment against Matthew Padgett. Subsequently Bader filed a Garnishment action against State Farm & Fire Casualty Company seeking to collect said Judgment from the proceeds of the policy. The Circuit Court granted Summary Judgment in favor of State Farm & Fire Casualty Company. Bader appeals.

On appeal, Bader argues that the Circuit Court erred in granting Summary Judgment because he argues it is a substantial and controverted issue of fact whether or not the assault was an “occurrence” as defined in the policy. Additionally, Bader argues that the trial court erred in not considering the affidavit of Dr. Ralph Orlo-vick presented as part of his Motion to Reconsider.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*95 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Berryl Bader appeals the Judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable John F. Kintz presiding. Matthew Padgett was covered by an insurance policy from State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. Bader obtained a Judgment against Matthew Padgett. Subsequently Bader filed a Garnishment action against State Farm & Fire Casualty Company seeking to collect said Judgment from the proceeds of the policy. The Circuit Court granted Summary Judgment in favor of State Farm & Fire Casualty Company. Bader appeals.

On appeal, Bader argues that the Circuit Court erred in granting Summary Judgment because he argues it is a substantial and controverted issue of fact whether or not the assault was an “occurrence” as defined in the policy. Additionally, Bader argues that the trial court erred in not considering the affidavit of Dr. Ralph Orlo-vick presented as part of his Motion to Reconsider.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 S.W.3d 94, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1396, 2009 WL 3086426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bader-v-padgett-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack