Hutchens v. Burrell, Inc.
342 S.W.3d 399
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hutchens, a psychiatrist, contracted with Burrell, Inc. to provide on-call supervision for advanced practice nurses, with disputed compensation terms.
- Pleadings claimed Hutchens would supervise for 928 hours at an agreed contract rate of $70 per hour; no open price term or quantum meruit pleaded originally.
- Hutchens admitted no agreement on exact amount or per-hour rate; no fixed hourly wage was ever agreed; no expectation of regular payroll was shown.
- A separate pretrial in limine prohibited evidence of the reasonable value of on-call services, attempting to limit the case to the contract Hutchens pled.
- Burrell argued Hutchens could not recover on an undefined open price term and moved for directed verdict; trial court denied.
- Jury instructions and verdict awarded Hutchens damages, but on appeal the court reversed, holding Hutchens failed to prove the contract pled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Hutchens prove the contract she pled? | Hutchens contends an agreement to compensate was formed at a later time. | Burrell argues there was no agreed $70/hour contract, only an open-ended compensation arrangement. | No submissible contract case; price term not proven. |
| May Hutchens recover for quantum meruit despite not pleading it? | Hutchens sought amendment to plead quantum meruit post-trial. | Burrell asserts quantum meruit evidence was improper and outside pleadings. | Not reached on appeal; excluded by in limine and no amendment allowed. |
| May pleadings be conformed to evidence after trial without consent? | Pleadings should reflect the evidence to support the contract claim. | Burrell did not consent to try a non-pled contract; evidence outside pleadings was improper. | No proper amendment or implied consent; contract pleadings stood and were disproved. |
| Can a contract with an open price term be treated as the contract pled when price term is disputed? | Agreement to be compensated in the future could be enforceable. | Open price term cannot substitute for a specific rate pleaded. | Not permissible; contract as pled required proof of $70/hour; undefined price failed. |
| Was JNOV appropriate given the trial record? | Evidence could support reasonable value of services. | No submissible case on the pleaded contract; Burrell disproved the contract. | Correctly granted; judgment for Burrell on the contract claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Wolfskill v. Shain, 178 S.W.2d 446 (Mo.1944) (contract must be stated and proved as pleaded)
- Smith v. Hammons, 63 S.W.3d 320 (Mo.App. S.D.2002) (cannot recover on a contract not pleaded)
- Swearingin v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 570 S.W.2d 810 (Mo.App.1978) (pleading governs contract recovery)
- Heard v. Stahl, 271 S.W.2d 68 (Mo.App.1954) (requirements to prove contract terms)
- Deisel-Wemmer-Gilbert Corp. v. David Chalmers Tobacco Co., 104 S.W.2d 1029 (Mo.App.1937) (express contract must be proven to recover; cannot recover on another contract)
- Allied Disposal, Inc. v. Bob's Home Serv., Inc., 595 S.W.2d 417 (Mo.App. E.D.1980) (open-price-term agreements may be enforceable; depends on contract terms)
- Klotz v. St. Anthony's Med. Ctr., 311 S.W.3d 752 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard for appellate review of verdicts in Missouri)