The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P's automobile was damaged when D's farm wagon rolled down an incline and struck it. D had property damage liability insurance covering the loss with I.M.T. Insurance Company and another insurer. I.M.T. obtained repair estimates but thirty-three days passed before the insurers agreed among themselves on how the loss would be shared. Eight days later I.M.T. offered P $ 1250 to settle the loss. P agreed but later on the same day rejected it as inadequate. P employed an attorney who demanded $1500 in settlement. I.M.T. raised its offer to $ 1300 and got no response. P sued for negligence. P alleged he was entitled to the market value of the vehicle of $ 1300 with interest at seven percent from the date of the accident and at the maximum legal rate from the date the petition was filed. P alleged he was required to rent substitute transportation at a cost of $500 'during the time he was requested to await adjustment' of the loss. P added that amount to the suit. P alleged that I.M.T. breached this duty by failing to pay the part of his claim not in dispute, asked for judgment for that amount, with interest, and asked for $10,000 in punitive damages. D admitted to the accident and since the vehicle was destroyed D only owed the $1,300 (its market value) with interest from the date of the accident. D moved for summary judgment. It was granted with the court denying P loss of use. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.