Case Name: Vicky CENTO, Appellant, v. BROPF'S CORPORATION, d/b/a Bropf's Mobile Home Sales, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-03-09
Citations: 136 S.W.3d 522
Docket Number: No. ED 82406
Parties: Vicky CENTO, Appellant, v. BROPF’S CORPORATION, d/b/a Bropf's Mobile Home Sales, Respondent.
Judges: Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 136
Pages: 522–522

Head Matter:
Vicky CENTO, Appellant, v. BROPF’S CORPORATION, d/b/a Bropf's Mobile Home Sales, Respondent.
No. ED 82406.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
March 9, 2004.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 28, 2004.
Application for Transfer Denied June 22, 2004.
Jeffrey J. Lowe, Simon, Lowe & Passa-nante, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Gary E. Snodgrass, Rabbitt, Pitzer & Snodgrass, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Vicky Cento ("Cento") sued Bropfs Corporation ("Bropfs") for negligence as a result of an injury she allegedly sustained while riding in a golf cart operated by Bropfs. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Bropfs. Cento contends that the trial court erred because (1) Bropfs sent an unadmitted exhibit to the jury room, and (2) Bropfs, by way of the unadmitted exhibit, improperly injected the issue of insurance into the trial.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Sherar v. Zipper, 98 S.W.3d 628, 632 (Mo.App. W.D.2003). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).