425 S.W.3d 225
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- INDIV sued DeWitt and others for damage to its Springfield office allegedly caused by nearby construction.
- Pretrial settlements led INDIV to dismiss the City, A-l Electric, and May in exchange for releases totaling $28,500.
- DeWitt amended its answer to assert a reduction and setoff under §537.060, urging reduction by settlements with other tortfeasors.
- Trial resulted in a $28,000 verdict for INDIV; DeWitt moved to reduce by $28,500 using Exhibits A–F (releases and checks).
- INDIV objected to Exhibits A–F as beyond the pleadings and untimely; the trial court admitted them.
- The trial court ultimately reduced INDIV’s verdict to zero based on the settlements; on appeal, the court held the Exhibits were improper because the reduction defense was not properly pleaded and the pleadings did not state the settlement amounts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exhibits A–F were within the scope of the pleadings | INDIV contends DeWitt failed to plead the amount of settlements, making A–F beyond scope. | DeWitt argues the pleading identified the settlements and therefore complied with Sanders. | Exhibits A–F were beyond the pleadings because the second Sanders element (amounts paid) was not pleaded. |
| Whether Sanders requires pleading the settlement amounts to plead reduction | Sanders requires pleading existence of a settlement and the amount paid; DeWitt failed to plead the amounts. | Identification of settlements suffices under DeWitt’s pleading; post-Sanders authorities comport with substantial pleading. | Sanders elements must be pleaded and proved; DeWitt’s answer failed to plead the settlement amounts, making the reduction defense defective. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders v. Ahmed, 364 S.W.3d 195 (Mo. banc 2012) (reduction under §537.060 is an affirmative defense requiring pleading and proof of existence of a settlement and amount)
- Delacroix v. Doncasters, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 13 (Mo.App. 2013) (pleadings must contain facts supporting the elements of reduction; bare legal conclusions insufficient)
- Payne v. Markeson, 414 S.W.3d 530 (Mo.App. 2013) (post-trial context can affect pleading requirements; distinguishable facts from Sanders on timing of settlement information)
- McGuire v. Kenoma, LLC, 375 S.W.3d 157 (Mo.App. 2012) (addressed reduction pleading timing in other post-pleading contexts)
- Gibson v. City of St. Louis, 349 S.W.3d 460 (Mo.App.2011) (not binding when Sanders controls; indicated need for more definite statement but later overruled by Sanders)
- Textron Fin. Corp. v. Trailiner Corp., 965 S.W.2d 426 (Mo.App.1998) (evidence must conform to pleadings; improper scope of evidence leads to abuse of discretion)