Superior Boiler Works, Inc. v. Kimball
259 P.3d 676
Kan.2011Background
- Superior brought two spoliation claims against Kimball, Stuerman, and FK Company in a product-distribution context.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding no duty to preserve absence of contract/relationship or special circumstance.
- District court found evidence of a long-running commercial relationship but no implied agreement to preserve records.
- Defendants destroyed FK Company's historical records in March 2007 after Superior sought documents, including index cards and gold sheets, which were key to the 2002 response.
- Superior alleges defendants knew or should have foreseen asbestos-related litigation and that their destruction prejudiced Superior's defense.
- Court analyzes Koplin v. Rosel Well Perforators, Inc. to decide whether Kansas recognizes a duty or an independent tort for spoliation by codefendants/potential codefendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Koplin-created duties apply to these parties | Superior seeks a duty based on special relationship or implied agreement | Defendants argue no duty under Koplin; no special relationship or implied agreement | No duty under Koplin; cases do not create such duty |
| Whether Kansas recognizes an independent spoliation tort between codefendants/potential codefendants | Superior argues reserved question should cover codefendant spoliation | Defendants contend no independent tort for codefendants/potential codefendants | Independent tort of spoliation not recognized between codefendants/potential codefendants |
| Whether discovery sanctions or foreseeability alone create a duty to preserve | Foreseeability shows potential litigation; duty arises | Foreseeability without duty is insufficient; sanctions are not a private tort remedy | Foreseeability alone does not create a duty to preserve |
| Whether a chain-of-distribution relationship creates a special relationship | Product chain creates duty to preserve | Chain alone is insufficient for a duty | Chain of distribution is not, by itself, a special relationship creating a duty |
| Whether Koplin’s reserved question forecloses relief here | Koplin anticipated a viable first-party or related claim | Reserved question does not cover codefendant/underlying actions in this case | Reserved question does not create a new basis for spoliation relief; not recognized |
Key Cases Cited
- Koplin v. Rosel Well Perforators, Inc., 241 Kan. 206, 734 P.2d 1177 (1987) (sets the duty-to-preserve framework and rejects third-party spoliation torts)
- Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 464, 976 P.2d 223 (1999) (rejects third-party spoliation where spoliator is potential codefendant)
- Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.4th 1, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 248, 954 P.2d 511 (1998) (rejects independent tort for third-party spoliation; favors sanctions in underlying case)
- Hokanson v. Lichtor, 5 Kan. App. 2d 802, 626 P.2d 214 (1981) (no civil action for damages for perjury/spoliation; supports Koplin framework)
- OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Howell, 260 Kan. 305, 918 P.2d 1274 (1996) (reaffirmed Koplin's approach to spoliation without recognizing an independent tort)
- Temple Community Hospital, 20 Cal.4th 464, (same as above) (1999) (see above)
- Timber Tech v. Home Ins. Co., Nev. 118 Nev. 630, 55 P.3d 952 (2002) (disallows independent spoliation tort in subcontractor context)
- Hazen v. Municipality of Anchorage, 718 P.2d 456 (Alaska 1986) (recognizes intentional spoliation in some contexts but distinguished later)