Barbara Bartlett v. Missouri Department of Insurance and John M. Huff, WD79411

Bartlett and Hernandez, former Missouri Department of Insurance examiners, filed a petition styled as a class-action writ of mandamus alleging the Department stopped following § 374.115 beginning in 2001 and seeking back pay and pension losses.
The original filing in Jackson County was treated by appellants as a "regular" civil case; the court issued a summons rather than a Rule 94 preliminary order. Appellants expressly asked the clerk to file it as a regular case, not a writ.
The Department repeatedly argued the petition failed to comply with Rule 94 (no suggestions in support, missing essential exhibits, unclear statement of facts and relief) and that mandamus was improper because appellants sought to establish, not merely enforce, a right.
After transfers, amended petitions, discovery, and competing summary judgment motions over three years, the trial court granted summary judgment for the Department, finding appellants failed to show a clear, specific right and that sovereign immunity independently barred relief.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the trial court denied the writ without issuing the Rule 94 preliminary order (the proper prerequisite to an appeal) and noted appellants’ procedural missteps were primarily their own.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus was procedurally pursued under Rule 94	Bartlett sought a writ and later amended to supply suggestions and exhibits	Dept. argued initial filing and handling failed Rule 94 and no preliminary order issued	Appeal dismissed: petition handled improperly; denial without preliminary order is not appealable
Whether mandamus is the appropriate remedy to recover unpaid compensation under § 374.115	Bartlett argued § 374.115 mandated NAIC-based compensation, creating a clear right to payment	Dept. argued statute requires factual determinations (amount, scope), making duty discretionary and unsuitable for mandamus	Mandamus inappropriate: claimed entitlement depends on disputed facts and is not a clear, ministerial right
Whether summary judgment was a proper vehicle to resolve the writ petition	Bartlett proceeded with summary judgment after discovery	Dept. moved for summary judgment arguing no clear right to relief and procedural defects	Court questioned appropriateness of summary judgment in mandamus but affirmed dismissal on procedural/merits grounds if considered
Whether alternative remedies existed (declaratory relief)	Bartlett sought back pay via mandamus as "last resort"	Dept. noted declaratory judgment available to construe statute and determine rights	Court: declaratory judgment was an adequate alternative; mandamus is last resort and thus not warranted

State ex rel. Kelley v. Mitchell, 595 S.W.2d 261 (Mo. banc 1980) (describing mandamus as an extraordinary remedy and limiting its use)
U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs v. Boresi, 396 S.W.3d 356 (Mo. banc 2013) (mandamus procedures under Rule 94; preliminary order requirement and distinction from summons)
Molasky v. Westfall, 713 S.W.2d 569 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986) (dismissal appropriate where writ petition fails procedural rules)
Stone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 313 S.W.3d 158 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (when circuit court denies mandamus petition, proper recourse is filing writ in higher court, not appeal)
Powell v. Dep't of Corr., 463 S.W.3d 838 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (refusing to hear appeals where summons issued instead of preliminary order in mandamus proceedings)
Jones v. Carnahan, 965 S.W.2d 209 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) (statute-driven mandamus requires examination whether duty is ministerial or discretionary)