Zafer Chiropractic & Sports Injuries, P.A. v. Andy Hermann
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1020
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Zafer Chiropractic is a Kansas-registered sole proprietorship owned by Zafer, licensed in Kansas and treating patients there.
- Respondents Farmers Insurance and Hermann allegedly trained and directed conduct to undervalue, deny, or delay payments to Appellants for services rendered to insureds.
- Some insureds assigned their payment rights to Zafer via an assignment of benefits agreement in exchange for treatment.
- Alleged misconduct included payment delays from 2002–2006, ongoing undervaluation through 2006, and threats to deport certain Hispanic patients, plus false statements to Kansas authorities.
- Plaintiffs claimed loss of business and goodwill, insolvency by December 6, 2010; filed suit in 2012–2015, with venue and forum changes culminating in a Lincoln County judgment on the pleadings for Respondents.
- The trial court and appellate court applied Kansas law to the substantive claims; the petition sought five claims including contract, tort, and fiduciary-duty theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law governing substantive claims | Appellants contend Missouri has the most significant relationship and should govern. | Respondents argue Kansas law applies under conflicts principles. | Kansas law applies to tort and contract claims. |
| Breach of contract pleading sufficiency | Appellants pleaded contracts, assignment, and breach generally with sufficient facts. | Respondents argue pleadings lack essential contract elements and specificity. | Affirmed judgment on pleadings; breach of contract claim insufficient. |
| Tortious interference with business expectancy pleading | Appellants alleged intentional interference causing lost business and future benefits. | Respondents contend appellees failed to plead specific business relationships and damages. | Denied; pleadings insufficient to state a tortious interference claim. |
| Abuse of process pleading | Appellants argue administrative actions can support abuse of process under Kansas law. | Respondents rely on Kansas law limiting abuse to improper acts in judicial processes. | Denied; administrative proceedings do not satisfy the 'legal process' requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reis v. Peabody Coal Co., 997 S.W.2d 49 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (conflicts-of-law choice and most significant relationship)
- Viacom, Inc. v. Transit Cas. Co., 138 S.W.3d 723 (Mo. banc 2004) (Restatement §188/§145 factors for contract choice of law)
- Sturgeon v. Allied Professionals Ins. Co., 344 S.W.3d 205 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (five-factor test for most significant relationship)
- Sachs Elec. Co. v. HS Constr. Co., 86 S.W.3d 445 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002) (weighting factors in Restatement §188)
- Jordan v. Peet, 409 S.W.3d 553 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (facts required to support conclusions; ultimate facts needed)