White v. City of Ladue
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1480
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Larry White was hired as Ladue chief of police (June 2007) and discharged by City Council vote (Aug. 13, 2009); he filed suit alleging public‑policy wrongful discharge (Counts I–III) and Sunshine Law violations (Count IV).
- White requested City insurance records via Sunshine Law requests; City initially produced an insurance policy that lacked Form D0112 (Missouri Governmental Immunity Endorsement); Form D0112 was later produced on Nov. 11, 2011.
- The City moved for summary judgment on wrongful discharge claims based on sovereign immunity, submitting a certified 2009–2010 policy that included Form D0112 and an affidavit authenticating the policy.
- White sought discovery into communications among the City’s lawyer, insurance broker, and insurer about Form D0112; the trial court limited discovery, ruling attorney‑client and insurer‑insured privileges applied but permitted inquiry into timing/efforts to locate the form.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the City on Counts I–III (sovereign immunity) and granted summary judgment to the City on the Sunshine Law claim (denying sanctions because violations were not knowing/purposeful); various motions for continuance, sanctions, and to strike were denied.
Issues
| Issue | White's Argument | City’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal of wrongful‑discharge claims against mayor/council (individual defendants) | White: public‑policy wrongful discharge should not be limited to employer only | City: wrongful‑discharge claim requires employer/employee relationship | Affirmed — claim requires employer; dismissal proper (Counts I–III against individuals dismissed) |
| Pre‑trial discovery into communications about Form D0112 (privilege) | White: communications necessary to oppose summary judgment; privileges do not apply | City: communications among counsel, broker, insurer concern legal advice/indemnity duties and are privileged | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; privileges apply; any error harmless because discovery unlikely to defeat summary judgment |
| Denial/denied continuance to depose original claims handler (Heim) before ruling on summary judgment | White: needed Heim’s testimony to challenge authenticity/inclusion of D0112 | City: White had opportunity, failed to show affidavit describing specific evidence Heim would provide | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; White’s affidavit was speculative and prejudice not shown |
| Summary judgment on wrongful‑discharge claims (sovereign immunity via Form D0112) | White: genuine dispute exists whether D0112 was part of 2009/2010 policy; evidence (broker errors, initial omissions) creates factual question | City: produced certified policy with D0112 and affidavits/testimony authenticating it; any omissions were inadvertent broker error | Affirmed — no genuine issue of material fact; certified policy and affidavits sufficient; speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Sunshine Law (charging for attorney review time; knowing/purposeful violation) | White: City improperly charged/requested attorney review time and overstated hourly rate (knowing/purposeful violation) | City: attorney review time related to potential litigation is recoverable as actual research cost; advance amounts were estimates and adjusted later | Affirmed — court found charging attorney review time unlawful as a matter of first impression but not knowing/purposeful; no sanctions awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Hess v. Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, N.A., 220 S.W.3d 758 (Mo. banc 2007) (motion to dismiss standard; review de novo)
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid‑Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standards and de novo review)
- Farrow v. Saint Francis Medical Ctr., 407 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. banc 2013) (public‑policy wrongful discharge requires employer/employee relationship)
- Cain v. Barker, 540 S.W.2d 50 (Mo. banc 1976) (recognition of insurer‑insured privilege as variant of attorney‑client privilege)
- Kunzie v. City of Olivette, 184 S.W.3d 570 (Mo. banc 2006) (termination of city employee is governmental function supporting sovereign immunity)