Neil Desai, M.D. v. Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, 581 S.W.3d 596

In Nov. 2016 the Desais and Garcia Empire entered a contract under §537.065 (2016) limiting recovery to Garcia Empire’s insurer after an on‑premises injury to Dr. Desai.
Garcia Empire had liability insurance issued by Seneca; Seneca was notified of the suit and offered a defense subject to a reservation of rights, which Garcia Empire declined.
The case was tried and submitted Aug. 17, 2017; the legislature’s amended §537.065 (RSMo Supp. 2017) took effect Aug. 28, 2017 (between submission and entry of judgment).
The 2017 amendment preserved the same contract form but added (1) a prerequisite that the tortfeasor’s insurer be offered an unconditional opportunity to defend and (2) a requirement that insurers receive written notice of the contract and a 30‑day right to intervene before judgment.
Seneca moved to intervene and for relief from judgment after the Oct. 2017 judgment, arguing the 2017 notice/intervention requirements applied and were not satisfied; the trial court denied relief and the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Desai)	Defendant's Argument (Seneca)	Held
Whether the Aug. 2017 amended §537.065 applies when contract was executed before amendment but judgment entered after amendment	The amendment applies only to contracts entered after Aug. 28, 2017; the Desais’ contract was valid under the 2016 statute	The amendment applies to any pending case where judgment had not yet been entered (i.e., applies to contracts even if executed before amendment)	The amended statute does not apply because the Desais’ contract was executed before the amendment and thus was not a contract “under this section” as enacted in 2017; judgment affirmed
Whether the 2017 amendment must be applied retroactively or is procedural so can affect this case	The legislature’s language limits the amendment to contracts entered under the amended section; savings clause preserves pre‑existing rights	Even if procedural, the amendment should operate to require notice/intervention for judgments entered after enactment	Court did not need to resolve procedural/substantive dichotomy because legislative text and savings clause show the amendment was not intended to reach contracts formed before Aug. 28, 2017

State ex rel. Nixon v. Am. Tobacco Co., 34 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. banc 2000) (standard for reviewing denial of intervention as of right)
Bate v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 464 S.W.3d 515 (Mo. banc 2015) (standard of review and law on Rule 74.06(b) motions and void judgments)
Clark v. Kansas City, St. Louis & Chi. R.R. Co., 118 S.W. 40 (Mo. 1909) (when amendment continues prior law, prior and new versions construed together)
State ex rel. Stone v. Vernon Cty. Court, 53 Mo. 128 (Mo. 1873) (use prior and new versions together to determine legislative intent)
In re G.M.G., 525 S.W.3d 162 (Mo. App. 2017) (preservation rules for appellate review)