Brief Fact Summary. The Appellee, Roberts (Appellee), attempted to bring matters on appeal that allegedly had not been presented on cross-appeal.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A Respondent or Appellee may urge any matter appearing in the record in support of a judgment.
Issue. Whether the Appellee’s failure to present matters as cross appeals precludes the matters from being heard.
Held. No. The contention that the policy covered the accident sought only to sustain the judgment for a reason presented at trial and determined adversely to the Appellees. The recovery was on the policy. Therefore the Appellees may in support of the decree support the ground that the policy covered the accident.
Discussion. The Appellants asserted there was no liability under the policy and that the policy could not be extended through estoppel, no estoppel was proven and the Appellee was not prejudiced by the Appellant’s conduct. The Appellee in turn asserted that the policy should have been reformed, the court should have allowed reasonable attorneys’ fees and the statutory penalty and the policy covered the accident. The Appellant argued that none of the Appellee’s three matters could be heard because they were not presented as cross-appeals.