Is a Two-Year Statute of Limitations on Personal Injury Claims Coming Soon to Missouri?

A change in the statute of limitations on actions for personal injury is working its way through the Missouri Senate. Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), introduced by Senator Dan Hegeman, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and is waiting full consideration of the Senate. SB 3 states that any personal injury actions have a statute of limitation of two years from the time of injury.

The current law in Missouri says that actions for personal injury must be brought within five years of the injury occurring. If passed,  the change in the statute of limitations applies only to causes of action for personal injury that accrue on or after August 28, 2021. Continue reading »

Potential Changes to the Collateral Source Rule in Missouri

Authored by Katherine M. Flett with assistance from Haley E. Gassel, contributor

The Missouri House is considering a bill that would modify the determination of when evidence of collateral source payments in civil actions is admissible. Sponsored by Representative Alex Riley, Missouri House Bill 577 (HB 577) seeks to amend the Missouri Collateral Source Rule 9 (Section 490.715, RSMo.) and clarifies that the rule applies only to parties named in the plaintiff’s case. Approved by the House Committee and placed back on the formal perfection calendar in May, the bill is waiting to be placed on the House Formal Calendar for floor debate.

Proposed Changes to the Missouri Collateral Source Rule

HB 577 states that “in any action wherein a plaintiff seeks to recover for personal injury, bodily injury, or death, any party may introduce evidence of the actual cost of the medical care or treatment rendered to a plaintiff, or to the person for whose injury or death plaintiff seeks to recover.” It goes on to explain that “actual cost of the medical care or treatment shall be reasonable, necessary, and a proximate result of the negligence or fault of any party.”

The exception to this rule is Subsection 2. Under the bill, any part or all of a plaintiff’s special damages paid for by the defendant, the insurer, and/or authorized representative, (or any combination of these) are not recoverable from the defendant in the plaintiff’s claims for special damages.

Another change to the rule involves which amounts billed can be submitted as evidence. Evidence of any amount billed for medical care or treatment that has been “discounted, written off, or satisfied by payment of an amount less than the amount billed” may be not be admitted. However, the actual cost of medical care or treatment provided and any contracted discounts, price reductions or write offs may be admitted as “evidence relevant to the potential cost of future treatment.”

Potential Effects of Changes to the Missouri Collateral Source Rule Continue reading »

Revisions to Punitive Damages in Missouri

Changes have been made to punitive damages claims in civil actions filed in Missouri on or after August 28, 2020.

Under the revisions, Missouri Revised Statute Section 510.261 now prohibits parties from making a claim for punitive damages in their initial pleading in a civil action. Any claimant who wishes to add a punitive damages claim to a civil action must file a written motion to amend 120 days prior to the pretrial conference, or, if no conference is scheduled, 120 days prior to trial, seeking leave to bring a claim for punitive damages. The claimant seeking leave must provide exhibits, affidavits, and discovery materials establishing a reasonable basis for the recovery of punitive damages. Any party opposing leave may submit admissible evidence to demonstrate that the standards for a punitive damage award have not been met. The court may grant leave to add the punitive damages claim if it determines that a judge or jury could reasonably conclude, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the standards for a punitive damage award have been met. This statute has the effect of preventing meritless claims being made in litigation as well as saving both the time and money of the parties involved.

Substantive Changes and Clarifications

After clearing the hurdle of obtaining leave to bring a punitive damages claim, a claimant must satisfy the statute’s requirements to receive an award of punitive damages. To do so, RSMo  510.261(1) requires the claimant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant “intentionally harmed the plaintiff without just cause or acted with a deliberate and flagrant disregard for the safety of others.” The revised statute does three things:

1. Codifies the original common law regarding punitive damages. In Klingman v. Holmes, 54 Mo. 304, 308 (1873), the first Missouri Supreme Court case allowing an award of punitive damages, the Court held that exemplary damages are only appropriate where an evil intent has manifested itself in acts. The court reasoned that under common law there must have been intent, or positive proof of malice, to justify granting punitive damages.
2. Clarifies the requisite mental state of the defendant, to intentionally harm without cause or with a deliberate and flagrant disregard for the safety of others. This gives the judge or fact finder a clear standard for determining whether the claimant is entitled to punitive damages.
3. Codifies the “clear and convincing” burden of proof standard. The Missouri Supreme Court has previously adopted this standard, but it had yet to be codified.[1]^,[2] The clear and convincing burden of proof standard falls within the middle ground of the ordinary civil burden of proof standard, preponderance of the evidence, and the criminal law standard, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nominal Damages Continue reading »

Eviction/Foreclosure Moratorium Changes and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Final Rule on Foreclosure

On June 24, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) extended its eviction moratorium order which was set to expire on June 30, 2021.  According to CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the eviction moratorium will now expire July 31, 2021 and is intended to be the final extension.

Just a few days later, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request by a group of landlords to allow a federal judge’s decision to block the eviction moratorium to go into effect nationwide while litigation disputes continued to vacate a stay order from Federal Judge Dabney Friedrich that declared the CDC moratorium unlawful (see “Federal Judge Dabney Friedrich Vacates CDC Nationwide Eviction Moratorium”). Washington-based U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled in favor of the landlords in May 2021 but put her ruling on hold pending the government’s appeal in the case. The landlords appealed to the Supreme Court after a lower appellate court rejected their request to unfreeze Judge Friedrich’s ruling. The landlord groups, led by the Alabama Association of Realtors, sued to challenge the moratorium, arguing that the CDC exceeded its authority under a federal law called the Public Health Service Act. They wrote in court papers: “Congress never gave the CDC the staggering amount of power it now claims.”  The groups said an eviction ban is no longer needed for public health reasons in light of declining COVID-19 cases and deaths. They also cited the CDC’s May 13, 2021 announcement that vaccinated people no longer need to wear masks or practice social distancing indoors. Continue reading »

High Burden of Proof Established for COVID-19 Exposure, Medical, and Products Liability Actions

The Missouri House voted to pass Missouri Senate Bill 51, which establishes provisions related to COVID-19 exposure liability actions, COVID-19 medical liability actions, and COVID-19 products liability actions, in the final minutes of the 2021 legislative session.  It was signed by Governor Parsons on July 7, 2021.  The new law will become effective on August 28, 2021, and expire on August 28, 2025.

COVID-19 Exposure Liability

Under Senate Bill 51, no business, service, activity, or accommodation will be liable in any COVID-19 exposure action, unless it is proven by “clear and convincing evidence” that “recklessness or willful misconduct” caused an actual exposure to COVID-19 resulting in personal injury.

• “Recklessness” is defined as “a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and the consequences to another party.”
• “Willful misconduct” is defined as “an act or omission that is taken intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose or in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit.”

While we do not know how broadly the courts will interpret these terms, taking actions to prevent the spread of COVID-19, such as requiring mask-wearing, hand sanitizing, and social distancing, could all be helpful in defending a COVID-19 exposure case.  As for vaccinations, the law clearly states, that businesses are not required to establish a policy that requires or mandates vaccination or proof of vaccination to avoid COVID-19 exposure liability.

The new law allows for the presumption that an individual assumes personal risk when the business clearly posts the following message near its entrance: Continue reading »

Federal Judge Dabney Friedrich Vacates CDC Nationwide Eviction Moratorium

On May 5, 2021, Federal District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich in Alabama Association of Realtors, et al.  v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., determined the Federal Public Health Service Act, which governs the federal government’s response to infectious diseases such as COVID-19, does not provide legal authority for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium. Originally set to lapse on December 31, 2020, the eviction moratorium is set to lapse on June 30, 2021. Judge Friedrich reasoned the Public Health Service Act unambiguously forecloses the nationwide eviction moratorium and issued an Order advising that the current CDC nationwide eviction moratorium issued is vacated.

The nationwide eviction moratorium was initially put in place in September 2020 under the Trump Administration and has been extended three times. Judge Friedrich indicated there was “no doubt” Congress intended to empower the CDC to combat COVID-19 through different measures, such as quarantines, but not a moratorium on landlord evictions.  Other federal courts have been divided over the CDC landlord eviction moratorium, with some also finding the CDC exceeded its authority, though none formally blocked its enforcement. The March 25, 2021 blog post “CDC Eviction Moratorium Declared Unconstitutional by Texas Court” discussed other recent rulings in Ohio and Texas: Continue reading »

Illinois Enacts New Restrictions for Considering Criminal History in Employment Decisions and Equal Pay Requirements

Employment law changes regarding human rights and equal pay have arrived in Illinois.  On March 23, 2021, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed into law S.B. 1480, which makes significant amendments to both the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) and the Illinois Equal Pay Act (IEPA), effective immediately.

Criminal Conviction Record and Employment

S.B. 1480 amends the IHRA with more limitations on how an employer may use an employee’s or applicant’s criminal conviction record when making employment decisions. It is now a civil rights violation for any employer to use a criminal conviction record as a basis to refuse to hire, terminate, or take any other adverse employment action against the applicant or employee with two exceptions:

1. There is a “substantial relationship” between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the employment sought or held; or
2. By granting or continuing employment, an “unreasonable risk” would exist “to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public.”^[1]

To determine whether a substantial relationship exists, an employer should consider whether the employment position “offers an opportunity for the same or a similar offense to occur and whether the circumstances leading to the conduct for which the person was convicted will recur in the employment position.”^[2]

The new law also requires an employer to consider the following relevant factors when making this determination: Continue reading »

CDC Eviction Moratorium Declared Unconstitutional by Texas Court

On February 25, 2021 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted plaintiffs’ (landlords’ and property managers’) Motion for Summary Judgment, ruling that decisions to enact eviction moratoriums rest with the states. In Lauren Terkel, et al. v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, et al., the court ruled that the federal government’s Article I power under the U.S. Constitution to regulate interstate commerce and enact necessary and proper laws (Necessary and Proper Clause) “does not include the power” to order all evictions be stopped during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an eviction moratorium order in September 2020 which was set to expire on December 31, 2020. Initially extended to January 31, 2021, the Order was then extended to March 31, 2021.  The CDC Order “generally makes it a crime for a landlord or property owner to evict a ‘covered person’ from a residence” provided certain criteria are met. Under the CDC Order, the tenant(s) must submit a Declaration, signed by the tenant(s) and served on the landlord, and requires the tenant(s) to make their best efforts to obtain governmental assistance before they can obtain status as a covered person to avoid an eviction. The landlord is not required to notify the tenant that they can execute a CDC Declaration to obtain status as a covered person.  The CDC’s Order also grants the Department of Justice (DOJ) authority to initiate criminal proceedings and allows the imposition of fines up to $500,000 against landlords who violate the Order after receiving a CDC Declaration from all tenants on the premises. Continue reading »

Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Extension of the CDC Halt to Temporary Evictions to Prevent Further COVID-19 Spread

Updated 4/1/2021

On September 4, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), issued an Order under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) to temporarily halt residential evictions to prevent the further spread of COVID-19. The CDC Order was deemed to terminate by December 31, 2021; however, the December 27, 2020 Coronavirus Relief & Omnibus Agreement extended the moratorium until January 31, 2021. After an extension in January until March 31, the eviction moratorium is now extended until June 30, 2021. However, In Terkel v. CDC, a Texas District Court determined the CDC Order was unconstitutional. The Department of Justice field an appeal in Terkel. Since the DOJ appealed the Texas case, it would be wise for landlords to continue to operate as if the CDC Order is constitutional and in effect, especially outside of Texas. However, this does not prevent landlords from requesting an evidentiary hearing and contesting whether the tenant(s) met all the criteria in the CDC Declaration to obtain status as a covered person. If not, or if the tenant(s) did not serve a CDC Declaration on the landlord, then it appears the landlord can proceed with the eviction.

To invoke protection from the CDC Order, all tenants on the lease, rental agreement, or housing contract must execute the CDC Declaration and give notice to their landlord. The landlord is not required to notify the tenant(s) about the CDC Declaration.

Failure to execute the CDC Declaration by all tenants prohibits any potentially covered person from being protected from an eviction through the CDC Order if  solely for failure to pay rent.  A landlord can still evict a tenant for any other breach of the residential lease while the CDC order is in effect. Continue reading »

What, Me Worry? If You Store Customers’ Personal Information on Your Computer System, You Should!

MAD Magazine’s Alfred E. Nuemann would famously say, “What, Me Worry?”  If you store personal information about your clients or customers on your computer, however, you should worry that it is properly secured.

Hackers and other malevolent individuals on the world wide web are constantly trying to compromise or steal data from your computer system to sell on the dark web.  They particularly target names combined with (1) social security numbers, (2) credit or debit card numbers or other account information, (3) security or access codes or passwords,  or (4) medical or health insurance information.

Another common form of cyberattack is to plant ransomware on a target’s computer system.  Ransomware encrypts the data on the system making it inaccessible to the system’s owner, leaving a ransom note as the only thing readable on the affected system. Continue reading »