WILDHORSE SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. Assurance Co. of America

Missouri Court of Appeals

WILDHORSE SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. Assurance Co. of America

261 S.W.3d 649, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 849, 2008 WL 2497333

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 24, 2008

DocketED 89102

StatusPublished

This text of 261 S.W.3d 649 (WILDHORSE SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. Assurance Co. of America) 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

WILDHORSE SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. Assurance Co. of America, 261 S.W.3d 649, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 849, 2008 WL 2497333 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Charles L. Crane Agency Company (hereinafter, “Crane”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury entered a verdict in favor of Wildhorse Summit Development Corporation d/b/a Schierholz Homes (hereinafter, “Wildhorse”) on its claim of negligent procurement of insurance. Crane raises six points on appeal; Wildhorse cross-appeals.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the trial court’s 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.

The Charles L. Crane Agency Company (hereinafter, “Crane”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury entered a verdict in favor of Wildhorse Summit Development Corporation d/b/a Schierholz Homes (hereinafter, “Wildhorse”) on its claim of negligent procurement of insurance. Crane raises six points on appeal; Wildhorse cross-appeals.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 S.W.3d 649, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 849, 2008 WL 2497333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wildhorse-summit-development-corp-v-assurance-co-of-america-moctapp-2008.