The case involved beneficiaries of an accidental death insurance policy who sued the Life Insurance Company of North America after it denied their claim for proceeds following the decedent's self-inflicted gunshot wound, which the insurer determined was a sane suicide excluded from coverage. Plaintiffs brought state-law claims for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay, plus a claim under ERISA for wrongful denial of benefits. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice. It held that ERISA preempted the state claims and that, under the policy terms and Missouri precedent, suicide while sane is not an accident and thus not covered. The insurer's denial was therefore supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.
The case involved a male dockworker and janitor suing his employer, Holmes Freight Lines, under Title VII and the Missouri Human Rights Act, alleging that coworkers' repeated sexual harassment created a hostile work environment, that the company retaliated by ignoring his complaints and denying medical leave, and that the conduct amounted to intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment on the hostile environment claim after finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the severity and pervasiveness of the conduct and the company's response. It granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim because the plaintiff had not alleged retaliation or related facts in his EEOC charge, failing to exhaust administrative remedies, and on the emotional distress claim, which the plaintiff conceded was barred by Missouri workers' compensation exclusivity provisions.
This case involves negligence and product liability claims against Tokai Corporation and its subsidiary arising from a fire caused by an Aim N Flame butane lighter that resulted in the death of a four-year-old child. The defendants moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including lack of a private cause of action under the Consumer Product Safety Act, no duty to recall or retrofit, and various design and warning issues. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing claims for failure to recall or retrofit and failure to warn about use by unsupervised children, but denied it on claims regarding the design of the child-resistant on/off switch and certain failure-to-warn allegations, reasoning that once a child-resistant feature was implemented, a duty of reasonable care applied, and factual disputes existed on some issues.
Jerrie Gray sued Tyson Foods under Title VII and the Missouri Human Rights Act, alleging she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on sex that led to her constructive discharge from her job at a Tyson facility. A jury found for Gray and awarded $40,000 in back pay, $185,000 in compensatory damages, and $800,000 in punitive damages. On post-trial motions, the court granted in part the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, upholding the liability finding but reducing compensatory damages to $50,000 and punitive damages to $100,000 on the ground that the larger awards were unsupported by the evidence and excessive. In the alternative, the court granted a new trial unless Gray accepted the reduced amounts via remittitur, reasoning that while sufficient evidence supported the verdict on liability, the damage awards resulted in a miscarriage of justice due to factors including witness conduct and the degree of reprehensibility.
This case involves post-arbitration proceedings under the Federal Arbitration Act after a NASD panel awarded claimant Chris McClelland $120,000 jointly and severally against respondents Edward Azrilyan, John Squeri, and Timothy Alan Hills. Respondent Squeri filed pro se motions to stay confirmation of the award pending a NASD decision on reopening the arbitration and to vacate the award under 9 U.S.C. § 10, claiming a fundamentally unfair hearing. The court denied the stay motion because the NASD had already declined to reopen the arbitration and denied the vacate motion as time-barred under 9 U.S.C. § 12, since notice was not served within three months of the award's delivery on or about August 1, 1997. The court granted the claimant's motion to sever the claim against Azrilyan and confirmed the arbitration award against Squeri and Hills, ordering payment of $120,000 plus 9% annual interest from the award date under NASD rules and Missouri law.
This case involved a challenge by a candidate for Congress to a recent amendment to the Missouri Constitution that directed the state's congressional delegation to support a federal term limits amendment and required ballot labels for candidates who did not support it. The plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to block enforcement, claiming violations of the U.S. Constitution. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the claims that the amendment imposed impermissible additional qualifications on congressional candidates in violation of Article I, infringed on free speech rights under the First Amendment, and violated Article V's amendment process. Because there were no genuine issues of material fact and the defendant conceded the legal issues, the court permanently enjoined enforcement of the relevant sections of the Missouri amendment.
