American National Property & Casualty Co. v. Ensz & Jester, P.C.
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1382
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- American National sued Ensz & Jester for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, seeking recovery of amounts paid in Kurtz's bad-faith settlement and related attorney fees.
- Ensz & Jester represented Kurtz in an automobile accident case; Kurtz and his parents settled claims with American National's consent, and Kurtz later sued Ensz & Jester and American National for malpractice and bad faith.
- American National had provided litigation guidelines to Ensz & Jester and alleged failures to report damages, conflicts of interest, and settlement offers in a timely manner.
- Underlying accident involved Kurtz acting within or potentially outside the course and scope of employment with Employer; vicarious liability issues could have increased coverage.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment holding § 537.060 discharged Ensz & Jester from indemnity-type liability; the court distinguished indemnity from refund of fees in the automobile case, which was not indemnity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 537.060 bar indemnity-type claims? | American National seeks indemnity for amounts paid to Kurtz; argues not noncontractual indemnity. | Ensz & Jester contends § 537.060 discharges noncontractual indemnity when settled with Kurtz. | Partially bars indemnity claims; some claims are not indemnity and survive. |
| Are any claims noncontractual indemnity arising from an attorney-client relationship? | American National argues the attorney-client relationship creates equitable indemnity not barred. | Ensz & Jester argues no contract or vicarious liability; noncontractual indemnity is discharged. | Equitable indemnity arising from an attorney-client relationship is noncontractual and barred; but some related fee-recovery claims may survive. |
| Does a legal relationship between American National and Ensz & Jester defeat § 537.060's discharge? | There was an express or implied contractual/legal relationship creating a duty to indemnify. | No contract indemnity or vicarious liability; last sentence of § 537.060 excludes only contract/vicarious indemnity, so equitable indemnity is discharged. | No; § 537.060 discharge applies to equitable indemnity absent contract or vicarious liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beeler v. Martin, 306 S.W.3d 108 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (defines indemnity as shifting responsibility to another)
- Cardinal Glennon Hosp. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 997 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (disallows disguised indemnity claims as noncontractual indemnity)
- SSM Health Care St. Louis v. Radiologic Imaging Consultants, 128 S.W.3d 534 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (indemnity framework and distinguishing types of indemnity)
- Bostic v. Bill Dillard Shows, Inc., 828 S.W.2d 922 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992) (limits on noncontractual indemnity to discourage unintended indemnity)
- Wells Dairy, Inc. v. Am. Indus. Refrigeration, Inc., 762 N.W.2d 463 (Iowa 2009) (distinguishes equitable indemnity from contractual indemnity)
- Tiny Totland, Inc. v. Spalding & Evenflo Co., 242 F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2001) (equitable indemnity concepts in professional contexts)