MISSOURI REFORMS

Appeal Bond Reform:  HB 393 (2005); § 512.099 R.S.Mo. Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $50 million.

Appeal Bond Reform: SB 242 (2003); § 512.085 R.S.Mo.  Limits the amount that signatories to the Master Settlement Agreement are required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $50 million.

Class Action Reform: S.B. 1211 (2004); § 512.020 R.S.Mo.  Provides for the interlocutory appeal of class certifications. 

Collateral Source Rule Reform:  HB 393 (2005) § 490.715. R.S.Mo. Modifies the collateral source rule to allow the actual amount of paid medical expenses to be introduced into evidence rather than the amount billed.

Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 700 (1987).  Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments, but provided that a defendant who presents collateral source payments as evidence waives his right to a credit against the judgment for that amount.

Government Retention of Personal Injury Lawyers: SB 59, Sections 34.376, 34.378, and 34.380 (2011).  Prohibits the state and any of its agents from entering into a contingency fee contract with a private attorney, unless the Attorney General makes specific written findings.  The Attorney General is required to request written proposals from private attorneys, unless the Attorney General makes a written determination that requesting proposals is not feasible.  If the Attorney General requests proposals from private attorneys, the Attorney General is required to choose the lowest and best bid or request the office of administration establish an independent panel to evaluate the proposals and choose the lowest and best bid.  A private attorney who is representing the state on a contingency fee basis is required to maintain records about their expenses for at least four years after the contract terminates.  The attorney general's office is required to respond to requests to make these records available to the public under the sunshine law.  The Attorney General is required to post certain information about the contingency fee arrangement on their website.  The Attorney General is also required to submit an annual report regarding the use of contingency fee contracts.

Joint and Several Liability Reform:  HB 393 (2005); § 537.067 R.S.Mo. Provides that joint and several liability applies if a defendant is 51 percent or more at fault.  In such circumstances, the defendant is jointly and severally liable for the amount of the judgment rendered against the defendant.  If a defendant is found to be less than 51 percent at fault, the defendant is only responsible for the percent of the judgment he or she is responsible for.

Joint and Several Liability Reform: HB 700 (1987).  Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery of all damages when a plaintiff is assessed a portion of the fault.

Joint and Several Liability Reform: § 537.067 R.S.Mo.  Limits joint liability to two times the defendant’s percentage of fault, if the plaintiff was at fault.

Jury Service and Class Action Reform: S.B. 1211 (2004); § 494.432 R.S.Mo.  Provides for stricter criteria for jurors to be excused from service.  Allows one automatic postponement from service.  Specifies a maximum fine of $500 for those who fail to appear for jury service.  Provides for employee protections which prohibits employers from requiring employees to use personal or sick leave for time spent responding to a summons for jury duty.  Provides for small business protections which required a court to reschedule the service of a summoned juror if the juror works for an employer with five or fewer employees and has another employee already summoned during the same period. 

Medical Liability Reform/Expressions of Sympathy:  HB 393 (2005); § 538.229 R.S.Mo. Prohibits statements, writings, or benevolent gestures expressing sympathy by medical providers from being admitted into evidence.

Medical Liability Reform/Noneconomic Damages:  HB 393 (2005); § 538.205 R.S.Mo. Limits noneconomic damages in medical liability cases to $350,000 regardless of the number of defendants in the case.

Medical Liability Reform/Statute of Limitations for Minors:  HB 393 (2005); § 516.105 R.S.Mo. Specifies that actions against physicians and other health care providers for malpractice must be brought within two years of a minor’s eighteenth birthday.

Medical Liability Reform/Volunteer Immunity:  HB 393 (2005); § 538.228 R.S.Mo. Provides civil immunity from damages for physicians who provide uncompensated medial care (volunteer services).    

Medical Liability Reform: Noneconomic Damages Reform: Mo. Stat. § 538.210.  Limits noneconomic damages in medical liability cases to $350,000, to be increased or decreased on an annual basis in accordance with the Implicit Price Deflator for Personal Consumption Expenditures.  The $350,000 limit on noneconomic damages recoverable from any one defendant in a health care liability action did not violate equal protection clauses of the State or Federal Constitutions, or open courts or right to remedy provisions of State Constitution.  Adams v. Children’s Mercy Hospital, 832 S.W.2d 898 (Mo.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 991 (1992).

Medical Liability Reform: Periodic Payment of Future Damages: Mo. Stat. § 538.220.  Allows a court to order the periodic payment of future damages exceeding $100,000 in medical liability cases.

Obesity Litigation Reform: H.B. 1115 (2004); § 537.900 R.S.Mo.  Exempts from civil liability manufacturers, packers, distributors, carriers, holders, sellers, marketers, or advertisers of food (as defined in Title 21 U.S.C. Section 301 (F)) or an association of one or more such entities when the claim is for weight gain, obesity, or a health condition associated with weight gain or obesity.  The liability exemption does not apply if the claim is based on a material violation of a state or federal adulteration or misbranding requirements.  The liability exemption also does not apply for any other material violation of federal   or state law applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, advertising, labeling, or sale of food and the violation was committed knowingly and willfully.  The provisions of the bill do not preclude civil liability for breach of express contract or express warranty in connection with the purchase of food.  Finally, H.B. 1519 provides that discovery and all other proceedings shall be stayed during a motion to dismiss. 

Post Judgment Interest Reform:  HB 393 (2005); § 538.220 R.S.Mo. Specifies that post-judgment interest is to be calculated at an interest rate equal to the Federal Funds Rate plus five percent.

Prejudgment Interest Reform:  HB 393 (2005); § 355.176 R.S.Mo. Specifies that prejudgment interest is to be calculated at an interest rate equal to the Federal Funds Rate plus three percent.

Prejudgment Interest Reform: HB 700 (1987).  Permits the assessment of prejudgment interest only in cases where the judgment exceeds a settlement offer.

Punitive Damages Reform:  HB 393 (2005); § 510.263 R.S.Mo. Limits punitive damages to $500,000 or five times the judgment, whichever is greater.  Limit does not apply to certain cases involving housing discrimination.

Punitive Damages Reform: HB 700 (1987).  Requires the determination of awards for punitive damages to be made in a separate proceeding.  Permits the jury to set the amount for punitive damages if, in the first stage, the jury finds a defendant liable for punitive damages.  Permits the admissibility of evidence of a defendant’s net worth only during the proceeding for the determination of punitive damages.  Requires 50% of all punitive damages awards to be paid to the state fund.  Prohibits multiple punitive damages awards under certain conditions.

Punitive Damages Reform: Clear and Convincing Requirement: Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 936 S.W.2d 104 (Mo. 1996).  Requires a plaintiff to prove punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence.

Venue Reform:  HB 393 (2005); § 538.232 R.S.Mo. Establishes venue in the county where the plaintiff was first injured by the wrongful acts or negligent conduct alleged in all tort actions in which the plaintiff was first injured in Missouri.  Establishes venue in all tort actions in which the plaintiff was first injured outside Missouri: (a)  For corporate defendants, in any county where the registered agent is located or, if the plaintiff's principal place of residence was in Missouri when the plaintiff was first injured, in the county of the plaintiff's principal place of residence on the date the plaintiff was first injured; and (b) for individual defendants, in any county of the defendant's principal place of residence in Missouri or, if the plaintiff's principal place of residence was in Missouri when the plaintiff was first injured, in the county containing the plaintiff's principal place of residence on the date the plaintiff was first injured.  Specifies that in wrongful death actions the plaintiff is considered first injured   where the decedent was first injured by the wrongful acts or negligent conduct alleged in the action.  Specifies that in a spouse's claim for loss of consortium the     plaintiff claiming consortium is considered first injured where the other spouse was first injured by the wrongful act or negligent conduct alleged in the action.  Specifies that the court must transfer venue to the county unanimously chosen by         the parties if all parties agree in writing to a change of venue.  If parties are added after the date of the transfer and they do not consent to the transfer, the cause of action will be transferred to a county in which venue is otherwise appropriate.