State ex rel. Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. of Hickory County v. Barker

Missouri Court of Appeals

State ex rel. Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. of Hickory County v. Barker

658 S.W.2d 503, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4352

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 19, 1983

DocketNo. 13318

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 658 S.W.2d 503 (State ex rel. Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. of Hickory County v. Barker) 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

State ex rel. Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. of Hickory County v. Barker, 658 S.W.2d 503, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4352 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PREWITT, Judge.

Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Hickory County, Missouri sought this district’s writ of prohibition, contending that the claim stated by the plaintiff against it in the underlying action was barred by § 380.840, RSMo 1978, because it was not commenced within twelve months after the loss. Respondent had denied relator’s motion to dismiss on this ground. We issued a preliminary order in prohibition.

In its suggestions filed with the petition for the writ and in its brief, relator relies primarily upon State ex rel. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company v. Stubbs, 471 S.W.2d 268 (Mo. banc 1971), in contending that a writ of prohibition is a proper remedy here. Lumbermens appeared to support relator’s position that the issuance of such a writ may be proper. However, it no longer controls. State ex rel. Morasch v. Kimberlin, 654 S.W.2d 889 (Mo. banc 1983), held that prohibition is not proper against a trial judge who intended to proceed to trial after ruling that a statute of limitations did not bar the plaintiff’s claim. We must follow that decision and quash our preliminary order.

The preliminary order in prohibition issued herein is quashed.

MAUS, P.J., and HOGAN, J., concur.

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

PREWITT, Judge.

Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Hickory County, Missouri sought this district’s writ of prohibition, contending that the claim stated by the plaintiff against it in the underlying action was barred by § 380.840, RSMo 1978, because it was not commenced within twelve months after the loss. Respondent had denied relator’s motion to dismiss on this ground. We issued a preliminary order in prohibition.

In its suggestions filed with the petition for the writ and in its brief, relator relies primarily upon State ex rel. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company v. Stubbs, 471 S.W.2d 268 (Mo. banc 1971), in contending that a writ of prohibition is a proper remedy here. Lumbermens appeared to support relator’s position that the issuance of such a writ may be proper. However, it no longer controls. State ex rel. Morasch v. Kimberlin, 654 S.W.2d 889 (Mo. banc 1983), held that prohibition is not proper against a trial judge who intended to proceed to trial after ruling that a statute of limitations did not bar the plaintiff’s claim. We must follow that decision and quash our preliminary order.

The preliminary order in prohibition issued herein is quashed.

MAUS, P.J., and HOGAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

658 S.W.2d 503, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-farmers-mutual-insurance-co-of-hickory-county-v-barker-moctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack