City of Fenton v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

City of Fenton v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co.

780 S.W.2d 97, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1536

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 31, 1989

DocketNo. 56376

StatusPublished

This text of 780 S.W.2d 97 (City of Fenton v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co.) 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

City of Fenton v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., 780 S.W.2d 97, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1536 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

This declaratory judgment action was brought by the City of Fenton against its insurer Twin City Fire Insurance Co. Affirmed.

Fenton is the defendant in a separate suit challenging a zoning board decision. The trial court in this case found the Twin City policy did not cover the city in the zoning case. The city appeals and requests a clarification of the trial court’s order. The city would like an express statement that the order would not estop a claim of coverage in the event an amended petition was filed against the city by the zoning complainants.

The city is seeking an advisory opinion in anticipation of events that may or may not occur in the future. We are unable to render a decision based on what appellant believes the zoning complainants may claim in the future. Ferrell v. Mercantile Trust Company, N.A., 490 S.W.2d 397, 400[5] (Mo.App.1973). In the event of any amendment of the zoning claim, the order and judgment in this case must be construed in light of the record as a whole. Cady v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 554 S.W.2d 499, 501[2] (Mo.App.1977). Any action by this court at this time is unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

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

CRIST, Judge.

This declaratory judgment action was brought by the City of Fenton against its insurer Twin City Fire Insurance Co. Affirmed.

Fenton is the defendant in a separate suit challenging a zoning board decision. The trial court in this case found the Twin City policy did not cover the city in the zoning case. The city appeals and requests a clarification of the trial court’s order. The city would like an express statement that the order would not estop a claim of coverage in the event an amended petition was filed against the city by the zoning complainants.

The city is seeking an advisory opinion in anticipation of events that may or may not occur in the future. We are unable to render a decision based on what appellant believes the zoning complainants may claim in the future. Ferrell v. Mercantile Trust Company, N.A., 490 S.W.2d 397, 400[5] (Mo.App.1973). In the event of any amendment of the zoning claim, the order and judgment in this case must be construed in light of the record as a whole. Cady v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 554 S.W.2d 499, 501[2] (Mo.App.1977). Any action by this court at this time is unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

780 S.W.2d 97, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-fenton-v-twin-city-fire-insurance-co-moctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack