Case Name: Janet OWENS, Appellant, v. CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-06-10
Citations: 108 S.W.3d 123
Docket Number: No. ED 81924
Parties: Janet OWENS, Appellant, v. CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY, Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K, HOFF, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 108
Pages: 123–123

Head Matter:
Janet OWENS, Appellant, v. CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY, Respondent.
No. ED 81924.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
June 10, 2003.
Wayne T. Schoeneberg, St. Peters, MO, for Appellant.
Terese A. Drew, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K, HOFF, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Janet Owens (hereinafter, "Appellant") brings this appeal following a jury verdict in favor of CUNA Mutual Insurance Society (hereinafter, "Insurer"). Appellant claims the trial court should have granted her motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence because there was no evidence on the record supporting Insurer's affirmative defense, which prevented Appellant from collecting on the insurance policy issued to Virginia Jett.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The evidence presented was sufficient to support the verdict. Hanes v. Continental Grain Co., 58 S.W.3d 1 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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 judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).