Opinion
No. ED 101243
03-31-2015
Timothy Joseph Gallagher, Gallagher Davis, LLP, 2333 South Hanley Road, St. Louis, MO 63144, Matthew Richard Davis, Co–Counsel, 1670 South Hanley Road, St. Louis, MO 63144–2906, Heller, Gallagher & Finley LLP Dana Rene Roberts, Co–Counsel, 8777 North Gainey Dr. Ste, 165, Scottsdale, AZ 85228 Knapp & Roberts PC, attorney for appellant. James E. Godfrey, Jr., Deborah A. Suter, Co–Counsel, 211 N. Broadway, Suite 2500, St. Louis, MO 63102, Evans & Dixon LLC, attorney for Allstate, Ean Holding, LLC & Alamo. Russell F. Watters, Cynthia M. Juedemann, Co–Counsel, 800 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101–2501, Brown & James, PC; Kirk Rowan Presley, 4801 Main St., Suite 375, Kansas City, MO 64116, attorney for George Mair.
Timothy Joseph Gallagher, Gallagher Davis, LLP, 2333 South Hanley Road, St. Louis, MO 63144, Matthew Richard Davis, Co–Counsel, 1670 South Hanley Road, St. Louis, MO 63144–2906, Heller, Gallagher & Finley LLP Dana Rene Roberts, Co–Counsel, 8777 North Gainey Dr. Ste, 165, Scottsdale, AZ 85228 Knapp & Roberts PC, attorney for appellant.
James E. Godfrey, Jr., Deborah A. Suter, Co–Counsel, 211 N. Broadway, Suite 2500, St. Louis, MO 63102, Evans & Dixon LLC, attorney for Allstate, Ean Holding, LLC & Alamo.
Russell F. Watters, Cynthia M. Juedemann, Co–Counsel, 800 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101–2501, Brown & James, PC; Kirk Rowan Presley, 4801 Main St., Suite 375, Kansas City, MO 64116, attorney for George Mair.
Before Angela T. Quigless, C.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lawrence E. Mooney, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Sheila Webster (Webster) appeals from the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of ACE Insurance Company (ACE) on Count VI of Webster's third amended petition alleging that ACE was obligated to provide insurance coverage for personal injuries Webster sustained in an automobile accident. We affirm.
George Mair, EAN Holding, LLC, d/b/a Alamo Rent–A–Car, Alamo Financing, LP, and Allstate Insurance Company also were named as defendants in Webster's petition but are not parties to this appeal.
--------
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).