469 S.W.3d 1
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- RPCS operated a grocery store in a building leased from Highfill; building was insured by RPCS as lessee.
- A fire destroyed the building, prompting Highfill to sue RPCS for negligence and breach of contract.
- About 83 days after suit, RPCS moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding summary judgment inappropriate.
- The court framed summary-judgment standards and RPCS’s three asserted bases for judgment (insurability, negligence, contract).
- Record contained only limited, largely uncontroverted facts; Highfill contested several points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RPCS is entitled to summary judgment on Highfill’s negligence claim | Highfill contends RPCS failed to prove lack of fault or causation. | RPCS argues lease and undisputed facts show no negligence by RPCS. | Summary judgment inappropriate; issue contested on record. |
| Whether the lease exonerates RPCS from breach claims | Highfill argues breach remains despite lease terms. | RPCS asserts lease extinguishes breach claim as a matter of law. | Summary judgment inappropriate; record insufficient to decide. |
| Whether the lease language about insurance and destruction voids Highfill's claims | Highfill maintains language affects liability and damages. | RPCS relies on lease language to negate liability. | Summary-judgment relief improper; remand needed for fact development. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massie v. Colvin, 373 S.W.3d 469 (Mo. App. 2012) (citations and note on appellate practice)
- IT T Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary-judgment standard and burden-shifting framework)
- White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (uncontested vs. contested proof; evidentiary standards in summary judgment)