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

Collateral Litigation Exception American Rule

March 5, 2023

One of the narrow exceptions to the American Rule — that each side is responsible for his/her own attorney fees win or lose — is the collateral litigation exception. “[W]here the natural and proximate result of a breach of duty is to involve the wronged party in collateral litigation,” attorney fees are available. Johnson v….

Read More

Future Lost Profits

February 18, 2023

The purpose of damages (i.e., a money award from a judge/jury) is to make a plaintiff whole. With a contract case, for instance, the goal is to “restore a plaintiff to the position he would have been in had the contract not been breached.” Lipton Rlty v. St. Louis Housing Authority, 705 S.W.2d 565, 569 (Mo….

Read More

Proving Damages in Defamation

February 10, 2023

Defamation is a very difficult, amorphous claim. Most potential defamation claims are not pursued because it can be very difficult to prove damages. A “plaintiff must prove actual damages in all defamation cases.”  Nazeri v. Mo. Valley Coll., 860 S.W.2d 303, 313 (Mo. 1993) . Stated differently, “[p]roof of actual reputational harm is an absolute…

Read More

Daubert Challenges

January 25, 2023

A “Daubert Challenge” generally means a request to exclude a potential expert’s testimony. In most courts, an expert is one who possesses knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education and testifies in the form of an opinion about scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. There are five important considerations. First, the evidence must be scientific, technical,…

Read More
Scroll to Top