Narrative Opinion Summary
Gallant Insurance Company and Evans C. Spencer appeal a trial court judgment requiring them to pay the full amount awarded to Leo J. Biermann. They argue that the court erred by imposing the full payment on Gallant, given that Spencer was assessed only one percent of the fault in a related automobile accident case. After reviewing the parties' briefs and the appeal record, the court finds no merit in their claims of error. The court refrains from issuing a detailed opinion as it would not provide precedential value, instead providing the parties with a memorandum outlining the reasons for the order. Biermann's motions for a frivolous appeal and dismissal are denied, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Motions for Frivolous Appeal and Dismissalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Biermann's motions for a frivolous appeal and dismissal were denied, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.
Reasoning: Biermann's motions for a frivolous appeal and dismissal are denied, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
Imposition of Full Payment in Joint Fault Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the trial court's judgment requiring Gallant Insurance Company to pay the full amount, despite Spencer being assessed only one percent of the fault.
Reasoning: They argue that the court erred by imposing the full payment on Gallant, given that Spencer was assessed only one percent of the fault in a related automobile accident case.
Review Standards for Claims of Judicial Errorsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviewed the parties' briefs and the appeal record and found no merit in the claims of error presented by Gallant Insurance Company and Evans C. Spencer.
Reasoning: After reviewing the parties' briefs and the appeal record, the court finds no merit in their claims of error.
Use of Memorandum for Non-Precedential Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court chose not to issue a detailed opinion, opting instead for a memorandum explaining the reasons for affirming the trial court's judgment, as it would not provide precedential value.
Reasoning: The court refrains from issuing a detailed opinion as it would not provide precedential value, instead providing the parties with a memorandum outlining the reasons for the order.