Owens v. Cuna Mutual Insurance Society

Missouri Court of Appeals

Owens v. Cuna Mutual Insurance Society

108 S.W.3d 123, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 868, 2003 WL 21322979

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 10, 2003

DocketNo. ED 81924

StatusPublished

This text of 108 S.W.3d 123 (Owens v. Cuna Mutual Insurance Society) 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

Owens v. Cuna Mutual Insurance Society, 108 S.W.3d 123, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 868, 2003 WL 21322979 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Janet Owens (hereinafter, “Appellant”) brings this appeal following a jury verdict in favor of CUNA Mutual Insurance Society (hereinafter, “Insurer”). Appellant claims the trial court should have granted her motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence because there was no evidence on the record supporting Insurer’s affirmative defense, which prevented Appellant from collecting on the insurance policy issued to Virginia Jett.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The evidence presented was sufficient to support the verdict. Hanes v. Continental Grain Co., 58 S.W.3d 1 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties 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.

Janet Owens (hereinafter, “Appellant”) brings this appeal following a jury verdict in favor of CUNA Mutual Insurance Society (hereinafter, “Insurer”). Appellant claims the trial court should have granted her motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence because there was no evidence on the record supporting Insurer’s affirmative defense, which prevented Appellant from collecting on the insurance policy issued to Virginia Jett.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The evidence presented was sufficient to support the verdict. Hanes v. Continental Grain Co., 58 S.W.3d 1 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.W.3d 123, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 868, 2003 WL 21322979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-cuna-mutual-insurance-society-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack