Stormer v. Richfield Hospitality Serv., ED78905

• Decision Date: 25 September 2001
• Docket Number: ED78905
• Citation: 60 S.W.3d 10
• Parties: Marjorie Stormer, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Richfield Hospitality Services, Inc., Defendant/Appellant. ED78905 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District 0
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Marjorie Stormer, Plaintiff/Respondent v Richfield Hospitality Services, Inc., Defendant/Appellant

ED78905

Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

09/25/2001

Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Steven R. Ohmer

Counsel for Appellant: Debbie S. Champion and Kevin J. Marquitz

Counsel for Respondent: Ted F. Frapolli

Opinion Summary:

Richfield Hospitality Services, Inc., an innkeeper, appeals the summary judgment for $9,750 entered in favor of its guest, Marjorie Stormer, in her action asserting negligence and breach of contract.

Division Three holds: As the claimant, it was Stormer's burden to establish that Richfield could not prove the facts necessary to invoke its affirmative defenses based on sections 419.020 and 419.010, RSMo 1994. The materials Stormer submitted in support of her claim were insufficient to negate any element of the affirmative defenses asserted by Richfield.

Gaertner, Sr., P.J., and Draper III, J., concur.

Lawrence G. Crahan, Judge

Richfield Hospitality Services, Inc. ("Innkeeper") appeals the summary judgment for $9,750 entered in favor of Marjorie Stormer ("Guest") in her action asserting negligence and breach of contract. We reverse and remand.

The basic facts of the case are essentially undisputed. On Friday, May 14, 1999, Guest and her daughter ("Daughter") arrived by automobile at the entrance to the Regal Riverfront Hotel in St. Louis, Missouri. The hotel is operated by Innkeeper. The hotel doorman greeted Guest and Daughter, explained to Daughter where to park the car, placed their luggage on a cart and told Daughter he would escort Guest and the bags to the hotel lobby. Upon entering the lobby, the luggage cart was placed near an ATM machine. The doorman told Guest, "One of these gentlemen will take care of you from here" and he left. Guest proceeded to the front desk to check in. Guest could not see the luggage while she was checking in because it was behind her, but she did see it sitting on the cart after she checked in.

As Guest was checking in, she was informed that their room was not ready but would be ready in fifteen or twenty minutes. At some point shortly thereafter, Daughter rejoined Guest. They asked directions for the restroom and went there. When they returned the bags were still there. Guest and Daughter then walked down to the end of the lobby to look around. When they returned they stopped at the front desk and were informed their room was ready. They signed in and turned around and noticed that their bags were gone. The bags were not recovered until after Guest left the hotel to return home on Sunday.

Before leaving the hotel, Guest spoke to the police and reported her luggage stolen. Guest provided the police with an inventory of what she recalled as the contents of the bags. Included in the inventory were a number of valuable pieces of jewelry, including a diamond and emerald ring valued at several thousand dollars. In her deposition, Guest specifically recalled placing the ring in its box in a net compartment at the back of the bag when she packed the suitcase.

After Guest checked out of the hotel, her luggage was discovered by the housekeeping staff in a room reserved for another guest for the weekend. The luggage was seized by the police, and taken to the police station. An inventory performed by the police established that the bags contained all of the items reported by Guest except for two items later determined to have been mistakenly reported missing and the diamond and emerald ring.

In support of her motion for summary judgment, Guest submitted an affidavit and deposition excerpts establishing the foregoing facts, a written appraisal of the missing ring of $9,750 obtained shortly after the ring was purchased in 1988, and Guest's own opinion, based on her extensive experience with jewelry, that the ring was worth $9,750.

After Guest moved for summary judgment, Innkeeper moved for leave to amend its answer to add two affirmative defenses: (1) that Guest had failed to offer the diamond and emerald ring to Innkeeper for custody in an iron safe pursuant to section 419.020 RSMo 1994¹; and (2) that Guest had no written agreement with Innkeeper to assume liability greater than $200, thus limiting Innkeeper's liability to $200 pursuant to section 419.010. The trial court granted leave to so amend the Answer, apparently without objection from Guest. Innkeeper also filed a response to Guest's motion for summary judgment along with a memorandum of law, affidavits, the police report and excerpts from Guest's deposition. The trial court granted Guest's motion for summary judgment in the amount of $9,750 and Innkeeper appeals.

The standard of review on appeal regarding summary judgment is essentially de novo. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). The criteria for testing the propriety of summary judgment are no different from that which should be employed by the trial court to determine the propriety of sustaining the motion initially. Id. Summary judgment will be upheld on appeal if there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. A movant's right to judgment as a matter of law differs significantly depending upon whether the movant is a "claimant" or a "defending party." Id at 381. In this case, Guest, the party moving for summary judgment, is also the claimant. A claimant must establish that there is no genuine dispute as to those material facts upon which the claimant would have had the burden of persuasion at trial. Id. Additionally, where the defendant has raised affirmative defenses, the claimant's right to judgment depends as much on the non-viability of the affirmative defenses as it does on the viability of the claimant's claim. Id. A claimant moving for summary judgment in the face of affirmative defenses must also establish that each affirmative defense fails as a matter of law. Id. However, as to each defense, the claimant need only establish...