Two Defendants, Claim Splitting

Claim-splitting often occurs when one party brings successive actions against the same defendant. It is prohibited. “Claims that could have been raised by a prevailing party in the first action are merged into, and are thus barred by, the first judgment.” Chesterfield Village v. City of Chesterfield, 64 S.W.3d 315, 318 (Mo. 2002). The reason for the rule is to encourage all disputes to be resolved within a single suit.

There are exceptions. “When two defendants are potentially liable for the same loss, the claims are considered separate and two suits can be maintained against the differing parties.” Hollida v. Hollida, 190 S.W.3d 550, 556 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006). Stated differently, “[t]he rule against splitting a cause of action applies only where the several causes of action are between the same parties.” Lee v. Guettler, 391 S.W.3d 311, 313 (Mo. 1965).

Related Articles

Premises Liability: Third-Party Criminal Acts

November 22, 2023

As a general rule, if a customer/invitee of a business is harmed by a third-party criminal act, the business is not responsible. The rationale for this rule is that criminal acts are rarely foreseeable. Early v. Dunn, 670 S.W.3d 47, 51 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). There are a number of exceptions. First, a duty arises…

Read More

Mootness, Exceptions

October 19, 2023

Courts generally shy away from rendering decisions in moot cases. A case is moot when “the question presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any practical effect upon any then existing controversy.” DCM v. Pemiscot County Juvenile Office, 578 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Mo. 2019). There…

Read More

Comity, Multiple Lawsuits, Litigation

October 11, 2023

In complex situations, it is not uncommon for multiple lawsuits to be pending in multiple jurisdictions. When this occurs, one court, in the interests of comity, may allow the other court to handle the entire dispute. At the state level in Missouri, comity is not an ironclad rule, but a rule of “practice, convenience, and…

Read More

Contracts: General versus Specific Provisions

October 2, 2023

Parties are bound to the terms of the contract they sign, unless induced by fraud, duress, or undue influence. Lehman v. Automotive Investments, LLC, 608 S.W.3d 733, 738 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). In analyzing contracts, courts focus on the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used. Id. Often times, however, a conflict can arise between what…

Read More
Scroll to Top