Portia McMillan v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, Defendant/Respondent.
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1155
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Portia McMillan alleged injuries in Louisiana on October 23, 2013 and filed suit in Missouri on June 13, 2014 (within Louisiana’s one‑year tort SOL).
- McMillan voluntarily dismissed that first Missouri action without prejudice on November 16, 2015.
- She re‑filed the action in Missouri on December 14, 2015 (within one year of the Missouri nonsuit).
- Defendant Pilot moved to dismiss, arguing Louisiana law governs limitations and tolling under Missouri’s borrowing statute, and Louisiana provides no Missouri‑style saving statute so the refiled suit was time‑barred.
- The trial court granted dismissal; the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the Missouri saving statute applied to preserve McMillan’s refiled suit because her initial filing was timely under Louisiana law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Missouri’s saving statute (RSMo §516.230) can preserve a refiled action when the underlying claim arose in another state and is governed by that state’s SOL via Missouri’s borrowing statute | McMillan: because her initial suit was timely under Louisiana law, Missouri’s saving statute provides a one‑year grace to refile after nonsuit | Pilot: borrowing statute requires applying Louisiana SOL and tolling; Louisiana lacks a Missouri‑style saving statute so the refiled action is barred | Court held Missouri saving statute applies where the initial suit was timely under the foreign state’s general SOL; reversed dismissal and remanded |
| Whether Thompson v. Crawford requires applying foreign tolling/savings rules to bar the refiled action | McMillan: Thompson involved tolling and is not controlling for the saving‑statute issue; earlier Missouri precedent allows Missouri’s saving statute to operate | Pilot: Thompson mandates borrowing foreign tolling provisions, so Louisiana’s lack of a saving rule dooms the refiled suit | Court distinguished Thompson (tolling focus) and followed Christner/Turner/Toomes line; Thompson did not overrule those precedents |
| Whether an exception (where foreign statute embeds the limitation as part of the cause of action) applies here | McMillan: Louisiana’s general tort SOL is not a built‑in limitation; no exception applies | Pilot: argued applicability of foreign limitations rules generally | Court: exception (as in Toomes) applies only when foreign statute creates the cause of action with an inherent time condition; not present here |
| Forum‑shopping / policy concern about extending foreign plaintiffs’ time by suing in Missouri | McMillan: initial filing was timely under Louisiana law so no improper enlargement of time occurred | Pilot: applying Missouri saving statute undermines borrowing statute’s anti‑forum‑shopping purpose | Court: applying Missouri saving statute here does not grant extra time beyond the timely initial filing and does not offend the borrowing statute’s purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Christner v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 64 S.W.2d 752 (Mo. 1933) (Missouri saving statute may apply even when foreign SOL governs if original action was timely)
- Turner v. Missouri‑Kansas‑Texas R. Co., 142 S.W.2d 455 (Mo. 1940) (reaffirming Christner; saving statute applies after timely foreign‑law filing)
- Toomes v. Continental Oil Co., 402 S.W.2d 321 (Mo. 1966) (exception: where foreign statute creates the cause of action and embeds the limitations period, Missouri saving statute cannot revive the claim)
- Thompson by Thompson v. Crawford, 833 S.W.2d 868 (Mo. 1992) (when borrowing foreign SOL, borrow that state’s tolling rules; decision focused on tolling and minors)
- McDonald v. Ward, 919 S.W.2d 251 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996) (Missouri saving statute can apply alongside borrowing statute where initial filing was timely under foreign law)