Boomerang Transportation, Inc. v. Miracle Recreation Equipment Co.
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 228
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Boomerang and Miracle entered a 2004 three-year shipper-carrier contract with a minimum of 3,000,000 Line Haul Revenue Miles per year and a $1.15/mile rate for shortfalls, plus a 78% backhaul rebate if backhaul was secured.
- A 2007 one-year contract repeated the same terms but raised the per-mile rate to $1.19; the parties’ business relationship ended after expiration.
- Boomerang filed suit on January 29, 2010 with Count I for mileage shortfalls and Count II for non-payment; alleged shortages for 2004–2006 totaling 3,845,920 miles and $4,422,808.
- Miracle answered, contending the mileage requirement covered round-trip miles and that Boomerang used outbound miles; Miracle also asserted a backhaul rebate counterclaim and unpaid rental fees.
- Miracle moved for summary judgment; Count II was dismissed without prejudice; the court granted summary judgment on Count I, interpreting the contract to require round-trip miles and certified the judgment as final under Rule 74.01(b); Miracle’s counterclaim remained pending, and Boomerang appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgment is final and appealable. | Boomerang argues there is a pending counterclaim and thus no final judgment. | Miracle contends Rule 74.01(b) certification makes the judgment final. | Judgment is not final; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on Count I. | Boomerang contends contract is ambiguous; genuine issues of material fact exist. | Miracle argues contract language unambiguously ties mileage to round-trip miles. | Court did not reach merits; dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction before final adjudication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Epstein, 200 S.W.3d 547 (Mo.App.2006) (finality requires disposition of all issues and parties; Rule 74.01(b) not automatic finality)
- ARC Indus., Inc. v. Siegel-Robert, Inc., 157 S.W.3d 344 (Mo.App.2005) (certification of judgment under Rule 74.01(b) requires no just reason for delay does not guarantee finality)
- Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1997) (final judgment must dispose of a distinct judicial unit)
- State ex rel. State Hwy. Comm'n. v. Smith, 303 S.W.2d 120 (Mo. 1957) (final judgment concept tied to disposition of the claim)
- Lumbermens Mut. Cas. v. Thornton, 36 S.W.3d 398 (Mo.App.2000) (distinct judicial unit concept for finality)