STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CLARA MAE WARE AND JAMES E. ISBELL, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case reviews a summary final judgment in garnishment proceedings where an insurance carrier claimed its insured failed to cooperate. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the facts did not support the carrier's claim of non-cooperation.
No, the facts presented did not establish non-cooperation by the insured to the extent that it would deny recovery to the judgment creditor.
“The appellant, a garnishee after judgment, seeks review of a summary final judgment in garnishment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the original proceeding.”
Establishes the procedural posture and the nature of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClara Mae Ware obtained a judgment against James E. Isbell for personal injuries from an automobile accident. Ware then initiated garnishment proceedi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insurance Coverage Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, a garnishee after judgment, seeks review of a summary final judgment in garnishment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the original proceeding.
The appellee, Ware, sought recovery for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident occasioned by a rear-end collision. She secured a judgment for compensatory damages against the appellee, Isbell, and sought garnishment against the appellant’as the insurance carrier of Isbell. The carrier defended on the ground of failure to cooperate on the part of its insured [Isbell].
From the stipulated set of facts adduced at the pre-trial conference, the trial judge was warranted in entering a summary final judgment on behalf of the third party judgment creditor, as the facts [viewed in the light most favorable to the carrier] failed to disclose non-cooperation on the part of the assured [Isbell] which would have denied a recovery by the judgment creditor.
Judgment affirmed.