Crawford v. Distrib. Operations, Inc.
561 S.W.3d 463
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Crawford leased two buildings to Distributor Operations, Inc. (DOI) from 7/1/2002–6/30/2007; DOI occupied until 9/1/2003 and then sublet to Harris, who occupied until 12/31/2011.
- In Feb. 2012 a tenant (Austen Powder) tested the property for environmental contamination after a child’s lead exposure; testing detected lead on the property.
- Crawford sued DOI and Harris (filed 10/24/2012) asserting strict liability, negligence, breach of lease (against each defendant separately), and a joint personal-injury count; DOI moved for summary judgment on the first three counts based on the five-year statute of limitations.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on the three counts against DOI and certified the order under Rule 74.01(b); Crawford appealed while her personal-injury claim against DOI remains pending in the trial court.
- Central factual dispute: whether the property damage (lead contamination) was "capable of ascertainment"—i.e., whether a reasonably prudent person would have been on notice of potentially actionable injury before Crawford sued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the three dismissed counts were appealable under Rule 74.01(b) | Certification proper because the claims against DOI form a distinct judicial unit separate from the remaining personal-injury claim | Trial court correctly certified; counts against DOI resolved on a defense unique to DOI | Court held certification was proper: the three counts formed a distinct judicial unit and the 74.01(b) factors supported appealability |
| Whether the five-year statute of limitations began to run before Crawford sued | Statute did not begin to run because lead contamination was microscopic and not discoverable by ordinary inspection; expert and manager affidavits create a factual dispute | Statute began to run when DOI vacated (9/1/2003) because dust/discoloration was observable; thus claims time-barred | Court held there is a genuine dispute of material fact about when damages were "capable of ascertainment," so summary judgment for DOI was improper |
| Whether ascertainment is governed by a discovery rule or objective test | Crawford: statute begins when a reasonable person would be on notice and undertake to investigate (objective test) | DOI: argues that the court’s decision effectively adopts a discovery rule | Court applied Missouri's objective "capable of ascertainment" test (not a subjective discovery rule) and rejected DOI's characterization |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on undisputed facts | Crawford: evidence (expert affidavit) shows lead not visually detectable—creates fact issue | DOI: argued visual signs (dust/discoloration) made contamination ascertainable as a matter of law | Court held conflicting evidence precluded summary judgment; issue must go to the factfinder |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Powel v. Chaminade Coll. Preparatory, Inc., 197 S.W.3d 576 (Mo. banc 2006) (explains objective "capable of ascertainment" test for accrual)
- First Nat'l Bank of Dieterich v. Pointe Royale Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 515 S.W.3d 219 (Mo. banc 2017) (rules on Rule 74.01(b) certification and finality)
- Ndegwa v. KSSO, LLC, 371 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. banc 2012) (definition of a distinct judicial unit for appealability)
- Hardin v. Adecco USA, Inc., 419 S.W.3d 883 (Mo.App. E.D. 2014) (applies factors to determine whether 74.01(b) certification is justified)
- Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1997) (distinguishes final judgment from rulings on issues within the same claim)
- Cook v. DeSoto Fuels, Inc., 169 S.W.3d 94 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (statute of limitations as an affirmative defense on summary judgment)
- Modern Tractor & Supply Co. v. Leo Journagan Const. Co., Inc., 863 S.W.2d 949 (Mo.App. S.D. 1993) (contrast case where contamination was visually discoverable)
- Talbot v. Union Elec. Co., 157 S.W.3d 376 (Mo.App. E.D. 2005) (appealability and final judgment principles)
- Saganis-Noonan v. Koenig, 857 S.W.2d 499 (Mo.App. E.D. 1993) (generally disfavors piecemeal appeals)