Comens v. SSM St. Charles Clinic Medical Group, Inc.
335 S.W.3d 76
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Dr. Stephen Comens, a noninvasive cardiologist, worked for the Clinic since 1988 and read graphics for outside hospitals for which he was paid separately.
- In 1994 Comens signed a five-year employment contract that auto-renewed and permitted termination with 120 days' notice by either side.
- In 1999 the Clinic changed compensation, implementing a net-revenue model with various deductions and a $50,000 annual flat overhead rate for noninvasive cardiologists; Comens’ outside-graphics revenue was still payable to him.
- Comens objected to the flat overhead rate in writing; the Clinic did not revise the plan and did not respond to later letters seeking restoration of outside-graphics compensation.
- Comens sued for breach of contract in 2005; the jury found breach of two contract provisions and awarded $329,166 in damages, primarily due to the flat overhead charge.
- Comens moved for prejudgment interest; the trial court denied; the Court of Appeals later reversed, holding damages were liquidated and readily ascertainable, and remanding for prejudgment-interest award under § 408.020.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Comens' damages were liquidated and readily ascertainable | Comens; damages fixed by monthly withholding total $329,166. | Clinic; damages disputed in measure, not liquidated, so prejudgment interest not proper. | Damages were liquidated and readily ascertainable; prejudgment interest awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawk Isolutions Group, Inc. v. Morris, 288 S.W.3d 758 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (prejudgment interest compelled when damages are liquidated)
- Columbia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Long, 258 S.W.3d 469 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (purpose of prejudgment interest to promote settlement; ascertainability relevant)
- St. John's Bank & Trust Co. v. Intag, Inc., 938 S.W.2d 627 (Mo.App. E.D.1997) (disputed measure of damages precludes prejudgment interest)
- Jablonski v. Barton Mut. Ins. Co., 291 S.W.3d 345 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (damages ascertainable despite disputes over value)
- Ken Cucchi Constr., Inc. v. O'Keefe, 973 S.W.2d 520 (Mo.App. E.D.1998) (disputed damages can still be liquidated for prejudice purposes)
- Twin River Constr. Co. v. Pub. Water Dist. No. 6, 653 S.W.2d 682 (Mo.App. E.D.1983) (disputed valuation does not automatically bar prejudgment interest)