Scobee v. Norris
| Decision Date | 16 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 108712,ED 108712 |
| Citation | 620 S.W.3d 262 |
| Parties | Michael SCOBEE and Linda Scobee, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Lauren NORRIS, as Defendant Ad Litem for William Norris, Defendant/Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
R. Seth Crompton, Eric D. Holland, 300 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 801, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Plaintiffs/Respondents.
Thomas J. Magee, M. Elizabeth Dyer Kellett, 211 N. Broadway, Suite 2700, St. Louis, MO 63102, For Defendant/Appellant.
Lauren Norris, as Defendant Ad Litem acting of behalf of decedent William Norris (Appellant), appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to amend the judgment entered upon the jury's verdict. We affirm.
Michael Scobee and Linda Scobee (Respondents) brought an action against William Norris (Decedent) for personal injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident which took place on April 4, 2015. Decedent died on March 16, 2018. Seth Gausnell was appointed to act on behalf of Decedent as defendant ad litem. However, on September 20, 2019, three days before the jury trial, Lauren Norris, Decedent's widow, was substituted as defendant ad litem over Respondents’ objection.
The trial lasted four days. Before the jury returned its verdict, Appellant informed the court of Decedent's relevant liability policy with USAA Insurance Company (USAA). Appellant also notified the court that she was going to request that any jury award be reduced to the policy limit, which Appellant claimed was $100,000. The trial court took no further action at the time and indicated it would consider the issue post-trial.
On September 27, 2019, the jury returned its verdict for Respondents, assessing total damages at $7 million. Citing section 537.021,1 Appellant requested the judgment be reduced to Decedent's policy limit with USAA. The trial court denied Appellant's request and entered judgment on October 10, 2019. Appellant then filed a motion for new trial and an alternative motion to amend the judgment to reduce the award of damages to the insurance policy limit. Both motions were denied.
This appeal follows.
Section 537.021.1 was created "to simplify [the] burdensome procedure of normal estate administration in cases where there was no probate estate and the liability insurer was the ‘real defendant.’ " State ex rel. Gannon v. Gaertner, 592 S.W.2d 214, 216 (Mo. App. E.D. 1979). "The purpose of using ‘real defendant’ is to recognize, pursuant to section 537.021, the defendant ad litem is not defending any assets of an estate that decedent may have left behind, and is not personally liable for damages." Morgan v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 344 S.W.3d 771, 778 n.11 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011). The defendant ad litem serves as the deceased's legal representative, taking the place of the formerly required administrator. Id. Section 537.021.1 states:
Section 537.021.1 lists two ways to recover against a deceased wrongdoer. First, the court may appoint a defendant ad litem the plaintiff can then attempt to recover against. Id. Significantly, the defendant ad litem is tasked with representing the interests of the deceased wrongdoer and the plaintiff can only recover against the deceased wrongdoer's liability insurance. Id. Second, a plaintiff can recover against both the deceased wrongdoer's estate and his liability insurance, as long as the plaintiff takes certain actions. Id. Here, both parties agree this case deals with only the first option—recovery against the deceased wrongdoer's liability insurance.
Appellant raises two points on appeal. In her first point, Appellant claims the trial court erred by failing to reduce the jury's award to Decedent's policy limit with USAA. In her second point, Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying her motion to amend the judgment because Respondents are limited to USAA's policy limit and therefore unable to collect under a future bad faith claim.
The facts surrounding this matter are not disputed. Instead, Appellant claims the trial court erred in its interpretation and application of section 537.021, when it refused to reduce the jury's award to Decedent's alleged insurance policy limit and refused to amend the judgment to disallow any potential award under a bad faith claim. "The interpretation of a statute is a question of law and is reviewed de novo " Dodson v. Ferrara, 491 S.W.3d 542, 551 (Mo. banc 2016).
This Court resolves ambiguities in statutes by determining the intent of the legislature and by giving effect to its intent whenever possible. In determining legislative intent, no portion of a statute is read in isolation, but rather is read in context to the entire statute, harmonizing all provisions. This Court may apply rules of statutory construction to resolve any ambiguities if the legislative intent is undeterminable from the plain meaning of the statutory language. Further, construction of a statute should avoid unreasonable or absurd results.
Aquila Foreign Qualifications Corp. v. Dir. of Revenue, 362 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Mo. banc 2012) (internal citations omitted).
Appellant claims the trial court erred by failing to reduce the jury's award to Decedent's alleged policy limit with USAA. Appellant is advocating on behalf of USAA for the trial court to reduce the jury's award from $7 million to $100,000, arguing Respondents cannot collect from Decedent's estate and can only collect up to Decedent's policy limit from USAA. We disagree with Appellant's claim for several reasons.
Section 537.021 simplifies and streamlines the procedure for collection in state cases focusing solely upon liability insurance coverage. Morgan, 344 S.W.3d at 777-78. However, section 537.021 does not contain any language suggesting the court should modify a jury award based on the defendant's alleged insurance policy limits. In fact, the question of damages in a plaintiff's tort claim is separate and distinct from the later question of recovering against an insurer under a liability policy. Id. at 778. "If coverage is a disputed fact, it would ordinarily be decided after judgment during enforcement of judgment proceedings." McConnell v. Kelly, 860 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993).
Nonetheless, Appellant attempts to support her argument by referencing legislative history and secondary sources that state a judgment against a defendant ad litem will bind the insurer and be the only available source of recovery. See, e.g., 34 Mo. Prac., Personal Injury and Torts Handbook § 2.14.1(f) (2020). Relying on these statements, Appellant argues the court must limit Respondents’ recovery to Decedent's policy limit with USAA because the insurance policy is the only available source of recovery. However, Appellant incorrectly assumes the statute requires resolution of coverage issues in Respondents’ damages action, and her argument impermissibly intermingles the roles of a defendant ad litem and insurer.
We have previously addressed the distinction between insurers and defendants ad litem. McConnell, 860 S.W.2d 362. In McConnell, the deceased wrongdoer's insurer, Universal, was appointed as defendant ad litem pursuant to section 537.021.1(2). Id. at 363. Upon a challenge to the propriety of the appointment, the trial court held appointing Universal was proper under section 537.021. Id. However, this Court disagreed, holding that Universal was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
USAA Cas. Ins. v. Scobee
...620 S.W.3d 262, 266 (Mo.Ct.App. 2021). The Missouri Supreme Court subsequently denied the parties' application for transfer on May 4, 2021. Id. USAA then filed a Motion for Leave to Deposit Money [$100,000.00] in the Registry of the Court and for the Court to Enter Satisfaction of Judgment,......