Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

University of Missouri School of Law

2003

Critique

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Having Failed To Defend, An Insurer Can Still Argue Lack Of Coverage - Royal Insurance Co. Of America V. Kirksville College Of Osteopathic Medicine, Inc., Matthew Towns Nov 2003

Having Failed To Defend, An Insurer Can Still Argue Lack Of Coverage - Royal Insurance Co. Of America V. Kirksville College Of Osteopathic Medicine, Inc., Matthew Towns

Missouri Law Review

This Note explores the consequences of an insurer’s breach of the duty to defend under Missouri case law. It also examines the theories applied in other states in support of the position that a breach of the duty to defend entails loss of the right to argue lack of coverage. The Note concludes that the holding in Royal insurance Co. of America v. Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine, Inc. resolved a burgeoning controversy by clarifying insurers’ rights to an extent unknown in other jurisdictions.


Drop The Shoe: A Law Of Personal Jurisdiction, Douglas D. Mcfarland Nov 2003

Drop The Shoe: A Law Of Personal Jurisdiction, Douglas D. Mcfarland

Missouri Law Review

Personal jurisdiction standards outlined in International Shoe Co. v. Washington have proven to be inadequate. This Article begins in Part II with an examination of the origins of the International Shoe minimum contacts test, and then in Part III analyzes and critiques the opinion and the test. Part IV looks at later Supreme Court cases that attempt to refine and apply the test, and Part V looks at the same pattern for other federal courts and state courts. These Parts lead to the conclusion that the minimum contacts test should be abandoned in favor of a new law for personal …