[DOWNLOAD] "Louie Chailland v. M.F.A. Mutual Insurance" by Supreme Court of Missouri En Banc " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Louie Chailland v. M.F.A. Mutual Insurance
- Author : Supreme Court of Missouri En Banc
- Release Date : January 13, 1964
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 66 KB
Description
Louie Chailland was injured on May 13, 1959, when the horse he was riding was struck by the rear part of a tractor-trailer
unit driven by Franklin E. Smiley. He obtained a judgment against Smiley for $15,000 for his injuries and $500 for the death
of his horse. Upon defendant's appeal to this court that judgment was affirmed. Chailland v. Smiley, Mo. Sup., 363 S.W.2d
619. In this garnishment proceeding Chailland sought to collect the aforementioned judgment from M.F.A. Mutual Insurance Company.
Plaintiff's theory is that defendant Smiley's liability for payment of said judgment was covered by an oral contract of liability
insurance with said insurance company. A trial before the court resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of
$15,500, together with interest in the amount of $1,295.01, and the court costs totaling $391.67. Garnishee, M. F. A. Mutual
Insurance Company, has duly appealed. We have jurisdiction because of the amount in dispute. The appeal was originally heard and an opinion adopted in Division Two but the case was thereafter transferred to Court en
Banc. Additional briefs were filed and the cause was re-argued and resubmitted. Portions of the aforementioned opinion are
Plaintiff's contentions here are that (1) he proved a valid oral contract to insure which was binding on M.F.A., and (2),
in any event, the appellant is estopped to deny that liability insurance was in effect concerning the occurrence in which
he was injured, because, with full knowledge of the facts, it conducted the defense of the suit in question without procuring
a reservation of rights or non-waiver agreement from defendant. Since we have concluded that plaintiff's first point is meritorious
and is decisive of the appeal, we need not discuss or rule his second contention.