Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Cooper v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., No. E047002

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on September 18, 2009 1:21 PM

In plaintiff's suit against his insurance company for disposing of evidence that was to be used against a tire manufacturer in a product liability suit, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for nonsuit is reversed where: 1) plaintiff set forth a prima facie case that he relied to his detriment on State Farm's promise to preserve the tire; 2) plaintiff's opening statement referred to sufficient prima facie evidence to create a strong inference that the tire was defective and had it not been destroyed, plaintiff would have been able to prove his case against the tire manufacturer; 3) under the present facts, plaintiff's damages are reasonably ascertainable; and 4) plaintiff's pleadings, in conjunction with his opening statement, encompass the legal concepts of promissory estoppel and/or a voluntary undertaking by State Farm.      

Read Cooper v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., No. E047002

Appellate Information

Filed September 17, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge King

Counsel

For Appellant: McCune Wright, Richard D. McCune and Kristy M. Arevalo

For Appelle:  Berger Kahn, Sherman M. Spitz, David B. Ezra, and Jeffrey S. Crowe

Find a Lawyer

More Options