Our own Jim Foland is being joined by a talented group of noteworthy attorneys from around the state, all of which have pledged to support and contribute to this program as a center of excellence working in the interests of the state and the public at large.
At common law, the general rule is that there is no duty to protect against the criminal acts of third parties because such events are rarely foreseeable. However, there are two exceptions to the general rule.
Now that Hill is the law in Missouri, Plaintiffs will no longer be able to hide behind the work product doctrine as they sue multiple parties sequentially for the same injury.
In the end – at long last – the citizens of Kansas can rest easier knowing that common sense (which apparently, as they say, is not so common) has prevailed and a significant question of law has now been definitively answered.
In essence an act of tortious interference with a business expectancy will only lie against a third party, a stranger to the contract, that improperly interferes with the other party’s contractual relations.
In this case, the Judge pointed out that while he was sure Plaintiff sustained physical and emotional injuries, he was unable to award damages unless an evidentiary hearing was held where Plaintiff would be required to substantiate his damages.
Missouri courts routinely uphold the application of step-down provisions in insurance contracts, even where a “policy defines the lower limit only by the financial responsibility law.”
Brooks is an excellent case to have at your desk to simplify your evaluation of the Statutory employer/employee relationship and the operation of the defense.
As a practical matter be aware Plaintiffs have the burden of pleading specific facts that show an exception applies to sovereign immunity, and failure to do so will result in dismissal. Carefully read the policy to determine whether there is a waiver of immunity in the policy