Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This matter came before the United States District Court of the Eastern Division of Missouri on a motion for summary judgment. The litigation was the result of a state court judgment resolving a lawsuit, a judgment that the insurer, The Cincinnati Insurance Company, claimed it is not required to satisfy under the terms of an insurance policy it issued to Stolzer. This case is The Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Stolzer, 2010 WL 481298 (E.D.Mo.).

The underlying lawsuit arose out of an oral contract between Duffey and Stolzer, a general contractor doing business as P&G Construction. Stolzer agreed to design and construct a house for Duffey on a piece of property in Missouri. Duffey asked Stolzer to have the soil on the property tested, as she had had problems with a previous home caused by soil conditions. Stolzer responded that he was aware of her prior issue, but that he could address it through other means and testing would therefore not be necessary.

This premium content is locked for
Insurance Coverage Law Center subscribers only.

Start a free trial to enjoy unlimited access to the single source of objective legal analysis, practical insights, and news for the insurance industry.

  • Access the most current expert analysis and daily developments across jurisdictions
  • Solve complex research issues with expert tools and intelligence
  • Tap into insurance coverage expert guidance

Already have an account?
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact our Sales Department at 1-800-543-0874 or email [email protected].

ICLC Staff Writer


Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.