Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Manitowoc Co.
2013 Mo. LEXIS 9
| Mo. | 2013Background
- January 2006 crane accident; Grove U.S. LLC used steel/steel cylinder from U.S. Steel; Manitowoc owned Grove (via subsidiary) and Jacobsmeyer-Mauldin Construction; Jacobsmeyer sued Grove and Manitowoc for breach of settlement; Manitowoc sought contribution/indemnity from U.S. Steel; trial court dismissed third-party petition with prejudice for failure to admit fault; appellate court granted transfer.
- Travelers paid Jacobsmeyer's claims and settlement terms; Grove failed to pay under settlement; Manitowoc asserted if Manitowoc liable to Jacobsmeyer, U.S. Steel liable to Manitowoc.
- Rule 52.11 governs third-party practice; Rule 55.10 governs pleadings; there is no requirement that a third-party plaintiff admit fault to seek contribution/indemnity.
- Court held no jurisdictional defect from procedural missteps; dismissal without prejudice appropriate if merits not reached; admission of fault not required to plead contribution/indemnity.
- Stephenson and Mid-Continent relied on by U.S. Steel were overruled to extent they require admissions of fault; decision aligns with Whitehead & Kales adopting comparative fault without requiring admission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must a third-party plaintiff admit fault to seek contribution or indemnity? | Manitowoc; argues no admission required. | U.S. Steel; argues admission required under Stephenson/Mid-Continent line. | Not required; admission not needed. |
| Was the dismissal with prejudice proper for procedural pleading deficiencies? | Manitowoc; dismissal should be without prejudice if procedural treated as error. | U.S. Steel; dismissal with prejudice proper. | Dismissal with prejudice improper; remand with potential severance. |
| Do Whitehead & Kales/Stephenson mandate admission of fault for third-party claims? | Manitowoc; overruled to permit non-admission. | U.S. Steel; relies on those precedents. | Those cases overruled to the extent they require admission. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephenson v. McClure, 606 S.W.2d 208 (Mo.App.1980) (admission of fault required for contribution claims in some contexts)
- Mid-Continent News Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 671 S.W.2d 796 (Mo.App.1984) (admits fault requirement for contribution in some appellate opinions)
- Mo. Pac. R.R. v. Whitehead & Kales Co., 566 S.W.2d 466 (Mo. banc 1978) (adoption of comparative fault, broadened third-party practice)
- Whitehead & Kales Co., 566 S.W.2d 466 (Mo. Banc 1978) (foundational comparative fault framework; third-party pleading allowed)
- Whitehead & Kales, 566 S.W.2d 474 (Mo. 1978) (pleading rules apply to third-party claims against nonparties)
- Gramex Corp. v. Green Supply, Inc., 89 S.W.3d 432 (Mo. banc 2002) (to maintain contribution action, both parties must be tortfeasors originally liable to plaintiff)
- Stemley v. Downtown Medical Bldg., Inc., 762 S.W.2d 43 (Mo. banc 1988) (purpose of third-party practice to consolidate claims and avoid duplicative litigation)
- J.C.W. ex rel. Webb v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. banc 2009) (jurisdictional limits; Rule 52.11 context)