Case ID: sw3d_556/html/0097-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Howard T. SANBORN and Jonathan R. Lopez, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Nathan W. WORSTELL, Defendant/Appellant, and United Fire & Casualty Company, Defendant/Respondent.
    No. ED 106120
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
    Filed: June 12, 2018 Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 16, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied September 25, 2018
    Aaron W. Smith, 2100 W. Broadway, Columbia, MO 65203, For Plaintiffs/Appellants.
    Edward D. Robertson III, 11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200, Leawood, KS 66211, For Defendant/Appellant.
    Matthew M. Clifford, John G. Schultz, 8900 Ward Parkway, Kansas City, MO 64114, For Defendant/Respondent.
    Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
    ORDER
   PER CURIAM.

Howard T. Sanborn, Jonathan Lopez, and Nathan Worstell (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the trial court's judgment denying their motions for summary judgment and granting United Fire & Casualty Company's (United) cross-motion for summary judgment seeking a determination of coverage under a United insurance policy. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the circuit court did not err in denying Appellants' motions and granting United's cross-motion because there is no genuine issue of material fact and United is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ITT Comm. Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).