Case Name: Hugh LAW, Appellant, v. VIGILANT INSURANCE CO., et al., Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-05-09
Citations: 193 S.W.3d 773
Docket Number: No. ED 86943
Parties: Hugh LAW, Appellant, v. VIGILANT INSURANCE CO., et al., Respondents.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 193
Pages: 773–773

Head Matter:
Hugh LAW, Appellant, v. VIGILANT INSURANCE CO., et al., Respondents.
No. ED 86943.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
May 9, 2006.
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 13, 2006.
Hugh R. Law, Lowenhaupt & Chasnoff, LLC, St. Louis, pro-se.
Elizabeth A. Bradley, Knapp, Ohl & Green, Edwardsville, IL, for Respondent, Vigilant Ins. Co.
Russell F. Watters, Thomas M. Ward, Brown & James, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Respondent, The Cincinatti Ins. Co.
Michael Patrick Stephens, Jenkins <& Kling, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Respondent, Katherine & Sarah Law.
Theodore Joseph Williams, Jr., St. Louis, MO, for Respondent, City of St. Louis & Gateway Council of Hostelling InÜ.-American Youth Hostels.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Hugh Law ("Law") appeals from the decision of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the Honorable David L. Dowd presiding, granting Respondent Vigilant Insurance Company's and Cincinnati Insurance Company's motions for summary judgment dismissing Law's petition for declaratory judgment.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been given a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).