King v. Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange

Missouri Court of Appeals

King v. Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange

491 S.W.3d 661, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 577, 2016 WL 3165762

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 2016

DocketWD 79086

StatusPublished

This text of 491 S.W.3d 661 (King v. Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange) 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

King v. Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange, 491 S.W.3d 661, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 577, 2016 WL 3165762 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Margo King (individually and as next friend of her minor children Trista King and Jerrayah Roe) and Brenda King (collectively “the Plaintiffs”) filed this action in the Circuit Court of Jackson County against Respondent Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange (the “Insurer”). In their petition, the Plaintiffs contended that they are entitled to underinsured motorist benefits under an automobile insurance policy issued by the Insurer to Keith King. The Circuit Court of Jackson County granted summary judgment to the Insurer, finding that the Plaintiffs were not members of Keith King’s “household,” and therefore were not entitled to underin-sured motorists benefits. The Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no - precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Margo King (individually and as next friend of her minor children Trista King and Jerrayah Roe) and Brenda King (collectively “the Plaintiffs”) filed this action in the Circuit Court of Jackson County against Respondent Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange (the “Insurer”). In their petition, the Plaintiffs contended that they are entitled to underinsured motorist benefits under an automobile insurance policy issued by the Insurer to Keith King. The Circuit Court of Jackson County granted summary judgment to the Insurer, finding that the Plaintiffs were not members of Keith King’s “household,” and therefore were not entitled to underin-sured motorists benefits. The Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no - precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

491 S.W.3d 661, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 577, 2016 WL 3165762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-automobile-club-inter-insurance-exchange-moctapp-2016.