The decision was very helpful to commercial lenders who were facing numerous class action lawsuits asserting claims under the Interest Act.  The court’s decision represented the first time the Illinois appellate courts found that the Interest Act did not apply to commercial loans.

Ms. Yocum is experienced in insurance and banking litigation issues.

The Circuit Court of Livingston County, Missouri dismissed firm client, Birch Rea Partners, Inc. (”Birch Rea”) from a lawsuit filed against it in that county.  Birch Rea, an appraisal company located in Boston, Massachusetts, was dismissed because the court concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction over Birch Rea.  The lawsuit arose from  5 commerical appraisals performed in the New York and Pennsylvania that were mailed to to a Missouri Bank. The Court concluded that the requirements of Missouri’s long-arm statute had not been met and  that exercising the requested jurisdiction did not comport with the Due Process Clause as Birch Rea did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Missouri.

The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held that an auto tort defendant is not entitled to a credit for the plaintiff’s settlement with a doctor who negligently treated the plaintiff’s injuries. Gibson v. City of St. Louis, et al., No. 95949 (Mo.App.E.D., September 20, 2011). Plaintiff suffered serious injuries in a one car accident.  Her injuries included a comminuted fracture of her right femur, a fracture of her right tibial plateau, a fracture of C7 facet joints and numerous lacerations and abrasions.  The plaintiff suffered further injury when a doctor negligently rotated her right femur.  She settled with the medical malpractice defendants for $80,0000 and released all of the medical malpractice defendants.  Plaintiff did not release her claims against the City of St. Louis for the original wreck injuries.

Plaintiff sued the City of St. Louis for the injuries she suffered in the car crash.  At trial, plaintiff’s counsel was careful to only admit evidence of injuries relating to the car crash and to exclude evidence of injuries relating to medical negligence.  At the conclusion of the trial, plaintiff was awarded damages of $63,600 after reductions for comparative fault.  The City moved to have plaintiff’s recovery reduced by the amount of the medical malpractice settlement pursuant to R.S.Mo. § 557.060.

The Court of Appeals noted that there were two injuries, not one indivisible injury.  Although it is difficult to distinguish pain from different injuries to the same body part, the Court did not believe that difficulty justified a credit for the defendant.  Further, the Court noted that the parties had been careful to exclude evidence of the problems associated with the medical negligence.  The Court stated that the auto tort and medical malpractice defendants were not “joint tortfeasors.”

In these situations, the outcome will hinge on the specific facts of the case including whether there were separate events, separate or distinguishable injuries and separate or distinguishable damages.  The case provides valuable insight for trial lawyers whose clients have multiple injuries and who need to avoid having a damages award reduced by a settlement for a separate injury.