McClelland v. Burch

Missouri Court of Appeals

McClelland v. Burch

258 S.W.3d 482, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 803, 2008 WL 2416280

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 17, 2008

DocketED 90189

StatusPublished

This text of 258 S.W.3d 482 (McClelland v. Burch) 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

McClelland v. Burch, 258 S.W.3d 482, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 803, 2008 WL 2416280 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This action arises from damages sustained following a fire at a business where Donald McClelland (hereinafter, “Plaintiff’) was a holder of a note and deed of trust. Dahna McClelland (hereinafter, “McClelland”), the owner of the business, procured insurance for the business with Frank Burch Insurance Agency, Inc., d/b/a B & S Insurance Company (hereinafter, “Insurance Broker”). This dispute centers around whether Plaintiff or McClelland was the insured party and entitled to the insurance proceeds. Following a bench trial, Plaintiff was awarded damages for Insurance Broker’s failure to secure insurance for Plaintiffs benefit. This appeal follows.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment 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.

This action arises from damages sustained following a fire at a business where Donald McClelland (hereinafter, “Plaintiff’) was a holder of a note and deed of trust. Dahna McClelland (hereinafter, “McClelland”), the owner of the business, procured insurance for the business with Frank Burch Insurance Agency, Inc., d/b/a B & S Insurance Company (hereinafter, “Insurance Broker”). This dispute centers around whether Plaintiff or McClelland was the insured party and entitled to the insurance proceeds. Following a bench trial, Plaintiff was awarded damages for Insurance Broker’s failure to secure insurance for Plaintiffs benefit. This appeal follows.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 S.W.3d 482, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 803, 2008 WL 2416280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclelland-v-burch-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack