ABB, Inc. v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
390 S.W.3d 196
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- ABB and Securitas formed a 1998 security services agreement that limited Securitas' liability and required ABB to indemnify Securitas for certain third-party claims.
- The agreement authorized indemnification for claims arising from Securitas' negligent acts or omissions, including those related to personnel hiring, training, supervision, or retention.
- On January 7, 2010, a gunman attacked an ABB plant, resulting in three deaths and multiple injuries among ABB employees.
- Relatives of the deceased and several injured employees filed lawsuits against Securitas; ABB was not named as a defendant in those Employee Lawsuits, but Securitas demanded ABB defend and indemnify.
- ABB filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that the agreement did not obligate ABB to defend or indemnify, and Securitas counterclaimed for breach of contract; the trial court granted summary judgment for Securitas on ABB's declaratory judgment claim, while the counterclaim remained pending, and ABB obtained a Rule 74.01(b) final judgment designation.
- The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the judgment did not dispose of a distinct judicial unit due to the pending counterclaim arising from the same contract and legal theory.
- The court analyzed Rule 74.01(b), the concept of a 'distinct judicial unit,' and concluded that certification was improper because the counterclaim and declaratory judgment action share a single legal theory and set of facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgment qualifies as a final judgment under Rule 74.01(b). | ABB argues a distinct judicial unit was disposed. | Securitas contends the counterclaim prevents finality. | Judgment is not final; no distinct judicial unit disposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbia Mutual Insurance Co. v. Epstein, 200 S.W.3d 547 (Mo.App. E.D.2006) (distinct-judicial-unit requirement for Rule 74.01(b))
- Bannister v. Pulaski Financial Corp., 255 S.W.3d 538 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (interplay of multiple claims arising from same facts)
- Boomerang Transportation, Inc. v. Miracle Recreation Equipment Co., 360 S.W.3d 314 (Mo.App. S.D.2012) (intertwined counterclaims prevent Rule 74.01(b) finality)
- Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo.banc 1997) (finality depends on disposition of a distinct judicial unit)
- Columbia Mutual Insurance Co. v. Epstein, 200 S.W.3d 547 (Mo.App. E.D.2006) (claims and counterclaims in declaratory judgment context must share distinct unit)