Boyd v. YOUNG AMERICA INSURANCE

Missouri Court of Appeals

Boyd v. YOUNG AMERICA INSURANCE

301 S.W.3d 555, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1771

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 15, 2009

DocketED 92999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 301 S.W.3d 555 (Boyd v. YOUNG AMERICA INSURANCE) 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

Boyd v. YOUNG AMERICA INSURANCE, 301 S.W.3d 555, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1771 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brittany Boyd (Appellant) appeals from the summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Young America Insurance (Respondent) on Appellant’s claims for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay against Respondent, based on Respondent’s failure to provide uninsured motorist coverage under Appellant’s mother’s (Insured) policy, for injuries Appellant sustained while driving Insured’s car. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tinch v. State Farm Ins. Co., 16 S.W.3d 747, 750 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brittany Boyd (Appellant) appeals from the summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Young America Insurance (Respondent) on Appellant’s claims for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay against Respondent, based on Respondent’s failure to provide uninsured motorist coverage under Appellant’s mother’s (Insured) policy, for injuries Appellant sustained while driving Insured’s car. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tinch v. State Farm Ins. Co., 16 S.W.3d 747, 750 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 S.W.3d 555, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-young-america-insurance-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack