West v. Sharp Bonding Agency, Inc.
327 S.W.3d 7
Mo. Ct. App.2010Background
- Tamar Grant dies during bounty hunting operation by Sharp Bonding; Emily West and Tamar's father sue Sharp Bonding, Seneca/Bail USA.
- 1998 Bail Bond Agent Contract appoints Sharp Bonding as Seneca/Bail USA's exclusive agent for soliciting/executing bail bonds in Kansas/Missouri.
- Plaintiffs allege Seneca/Bail USA is vicariously liable for Sharp Bonding's actions under an agency relationship.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Seneca/Bail USA and partial for Sharp Bonding, finding no agency relationship.
- Appellate court reverses, finding genuine issues of material fact exist as to agency, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does an agency relationship exist between Seneca/Bail USA and Sharp Bonding? | West/Grant: Bail Bond Agent Contract grants control; right to control suffices for agency. | Seneca/Bail USA/Sharp Bonding: no agency as to property bonds; no control over Sharp Bonding's bonds. | Genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment improper. |
| Is the Bail Bond Agent Contract ambiguous requiring extrinsic evidence for interpretation? | Contract terms and conduct support agency; ambiguity allowed extrinsic evidence. | Contract unambiguous; extrinsic evidence not needed to interpret terms. | Ambiguity exists and extrinsic evidence creates factual questions; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| If ambiguous, can the contract interpretation be decided on summary judgment? | Two plausible inferences about control create triable issue. | Extrinsic evidence cannot substitute for clear contractual language on summary judgment. | No; issue must go to fact finder; summary judgment reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Bach v. Winfield-Foley Fire Prot. Dist., 257 S.W.3d 605 (Mo. banc 2008) (right to control as key in agency existence)
- Ritter v. BJC Barnes Jewish Christian Health Sys., 987 S.W.2d 377 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (touchstone: control or right to control conduct)
- Hodges v. City of St. Louis, 217 S.W.3d 278 (Mo. banc 2007) (principal consideration: right to control in agency analysis)
- Ascoli v. Hinck, 256 S.W.3d 592 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (agency elements include right to control; not need for actual control)
- Maritz Holdings, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 298 S.W.3d 92 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (ambiguity потребes extrinsic evidence; jury decides intent)
- J.M. v. Shell Oil Co., 922 S.W.2d 759 (Mo. banc 1996) (terms of contract and implied understanding; credibility issues for jury)
- Vest v. Kansas City Homes, L.L.C., 288 S.W.3d 304 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (contract interpretation when ambiguous)