Case Name: Steve SCAGLIONE and Scaglione Corporation, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. H.B.D. CONTRACTING, INC., and Heideman & Associates, Inc., Hanco Construction Company, STV Inc. Architects, Shively Geotechnical, Inc., Sub Surface Construction, Inc., Loftworks, LLC, PNC Bank and Louderman Lofts, LLC, Defendants/Appellants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2013-05-07
Citations: 398 S.W.3d 124
Docket Number: No. ED 97314
Parties: Steve SCAGLIONE and Scaglione Corporation, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. H.B.D. CONTRACTING, INC., and Heideman & Associates, Inc., Hanco Construction Company, STV Inc. Architects, Shively Geotechnical, Inc., Sub Surface Construction, Inc., Loftworks, LLC, PNC Bank and Louderman Lofts, LLC, Defendants/Appellants.
Judges: Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and LISA VAN AMBURG, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 398
Pages: 124–125

Head Matter:
Steve SCAGLIONE and Scaglione Corporation, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. H.B.D. CONTRACTING, INC., and Heideman & Associates, Inc., Hanco Construction Company, STV Inc. Architects, Shively Geotechnical, Inc., Sub Surface Construction, Inc., Loftworks, LLC, PNC Bank and Louderman Lofts, LLC, Defendants/Appellants.
No. ED 97314.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
May 7, 2013.
Lawrence Bovard Grebel, Teresa Michelle Young, Thomas, Michael Ward, and Tyler Charles Schaeffer, Brown & James, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Heidi Lynn Leopold, Martin & Malee, St. Louis, MO and Louis Joseph Basso, Louis J. Basso, P.C., Chesterfield, MO, for Respondent.
Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and LISA VAN AMBURG, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
H.B.D. Contracting, Inc. (H.B.D.) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of Steve Scaglione and Scaglione Corporation (Scaglione) on its construction negligence and negligence per se claims. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).