Claude Patterson v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that excluding an expert’s testimony was harmless error because it was cumulative to the rest of his statements
• concluding that a jury instruction was appropriate under Missouri law where it “allowed forfeiture of all benefits even if the jury found that [the insured] made a material misrepresentation with regard to only one type of coverage provided by the policy”
• concluding that a jury instruction was appropriate under Missouri law where it “allowed forfeiture of all benefits even if the jury found that [the insured] made a material misrepresentation with regard to only one type of coverage provided by the policy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).