612 F.2d 1076 (8th Cir. 1980), 79-1200, Vette Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.

Docket Nº:79-1200.
Citation:612 F.2d 1076
Party Name:VETTE COMPANY and Kansas City Boneless Beef, Inc., Appellants, v. The AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, Appellee.
Case Date:January 10, 1980
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1076

612 F.2d 1076 (8th Cir. 1980)

VETTE COMPANY and Kansas City Boneless Beef, Inc., Appellants,

v.

The AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 79-1200.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

January 10, 1980

Submitted Nov. 6, 1979.

Page 1077

Michael J. Drape, Kansas City, Mo. (argued), and Stanley M. Burnstein, Kansas City, Mo., on brief, for appellants.

R. Frederick Walters, Linde, Thomson, Fairchild, Langworthy, & Kohn, Kansas City Mo., for appellee.

Before ROSS and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and McMANUS [*], District Judge.

McMANUS, District Judge.

In this removed action, corporate plaintiffs Vette Company (Vette) and Kansas City Boneless Beef, Inc. (Boneless) appeal from summary judgment below denying Vette recovery for lack of an insurable interest under a fire insurance policy issued to it by defendant, The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (Aetna), covering the contents of a building in Raymore, Missouri destroyed by fire March 2, 1975. We reverse and remand.

At the outset, we recognize that in reviewing a decision of a district court to grant a summary judgment, we apply the same standard as the trial court. Butler v. MFA Life Insurance Co., 591 F.2d 448, 451 (8th Cir. 1979). Summary judgment should not be entered unless the pleadings, stipulations, affidavits and admissions in the case show that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact. FRCP 56(c); See Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 467, 82 S.Ct. 486, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962). It is an extreme and treacherous remedy, not to be entered unless the movant has established its right to a judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy and unless the other party is not entitled to recover under any discernible circumstances. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm. v. Liberty Loan Corp., 584 F.2d 853, 857 (8th Cir. 1978); 10 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2725, pp. 502-03.

In passing upon a motion for summary judgment the court is required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and to give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts disclosed in pleadings and affidavits filed in the case. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm. v. Liberty Loan Corp., supra ; also for recent discussion of court's negative discretion in ruling on...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP