Chochorowski v. Home Depot U.S.A., 404 S.W.3d 220

Janet Chochorowski filed a class-action in Illinois claiming Home Depot violated the MMPA by automatically including a damage waiver fee in a tool rental and that the waiver was optional and worthless.
On April 27, 2002, she rented a garden tiller at a Home Depot in Brentwood; the rental agreement listed charges including a $2.50 damage waiver in a Special Terms box.
The damage waiver could relieve liability if paid; the waivers' benefits were described in Paragraph 11 on the second page and required the renter to initial.
Chochorowski initially signed and initialed the agreement, indicating acceptance of the terms, and later paid the damage waiver without contest.
The circuit court granted summary judgment in Home Depot’s favor; the Missouri Supreme Court affirmatively held the waiver was optional, conferred a value, and did not violate the MMPA.
The case was remanded and ultimately resolved in Home Depot’s favor on appeal, with the court holding the contract language and conduct showed no “negative option” violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the damage waiver a negative option under MMPA and 15 CSR 60-8.060?	Chochorowski argues it is forced on customers	Home Depot contends waiver is optional and elected by customers	No; waiver is not a negative option; it is optional and elected.
Does the contract clearly show the damage waiver was optional and value-bearing?	Terms allegedly bury the option and mislead about being mandatory	Contract language and actions show explicit optionality and benefit	Yes; contract language and conduct show opt-in structure and value.
Does the damage waiver confer a real, not illusory, benefit despite exclusions?	Waiver purportedly covers only limited accidental damage	Waiver provides defined protection for accidental damage and is not illusory	Yes; waiver confers value by relieving liability for eligible accidental damage.

Huch v. Charter Communications, Inc., 290 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. banc 2009) (unrequested merchandise billing not protected by voluntary payment)
Dunn Indus. Group, Inc. v. City of Sugar Creek, 112 S.W.3d 421 (Mo. banc 2003) (contract interpretation favors recognizing intent in plain terms)
Todd v. Mo. United Sch. Ins. Council, 223 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. banc 2007) (illustrates accident-based liability scope under contracts)
D.R. Sherry Const., Ltd. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 316 S.W.3d 899 (Mo. banc 2010) (defines accident for liability coverage contexts)
Wallach v. Joseph, 420 S.W.2d 289 (Mo.1967) (contract reading and knowledge of terms required)
Sanger v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 486 S.W.2d 477 (Mo. banc 1972) (signer held responsible for contract terms read or not)
Nunn v. C.C. Midwest, 151 S.W.3d 388 (Mo. App. 2004) (party charged with knowledge of signed documents)
State ex rel. Riverside Pipeline Co., L.P. v. Public Service Comm’n, 215 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. banc 2007) (contractual terms harmonized for reasonable meaning)
Robinson v. Title Lenders, Inc., 364 S.W.3d 505 (Mo. banc 2012) (read and understand contract terms presumed)