Global Rug Corporation v. Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Global Rug Corporation v. Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc.

182 S.W.3d 714, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 106, 2006 WL 163122

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 24, 2006

DocketED 86239

StatusPublished

This text of 182 S.W.3d 714 (Global Rug Corporation v. Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc.) 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

Global Rug Corporation v. Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., 182 S.W.3d 714, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 106, 2006 WL 163122 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Global Rug Corporation (Global) appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. (Fidelity) on its claim for policy proceeds following water damage to its retail store. On appeal, Global argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Fidelity because (1) the insurance policies in dispute did not limit coverage to $25,000, (2) the insurance policies were not clear and *715 unambiguous, and (3) there is a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the issuance and delivery of Fidelity Policy No. BK01244036 (036 Policy). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Global Rug Corporation (Global) appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. (Fidelity) on its claim for policy proceeds following water damage to its retail store. On appeal, Global argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Fidelity because (1) the insurance policies in dispute did not limit coverage to $25,000, (2) the insurance policies were not clear and *715 unambiguous, and (3) there is a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the issuance and delivery of Fidelity Policy No. BK01244036 (036 Policy). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 S.W.3d 714, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 106, 2006 WL 163122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/global-rug-corporation-v-fidelity-and-guaranty-insurance-underwriters-moctapp-2006.