# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 16 88
No. 1 3- 17 42

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Hud so n S pe ci al ty Ins ur an ce Co m pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

/C ro ss -App el le e

v.

Bras h Tygr, LLC, et al

.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es /C

ro ss -App el la nt

s

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 11 , 20 14
Fil ed : Oct ob er 7 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BYE, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Hud so n Sp eci al ty In su ran ce Co m pa ny is su ed a Co m

m erci al Lin es Mas te r

Po li cy to So ni c In su ran ce Adv is or y Trus t pr ov id in g co m m erci al ge ne ral li ab il it y an d

co m m erci al pr op ert y in su ran ce to So ni c Res ta ur an ts

, In c. a n d to So ni c fran ch is ees
who were en ro ll ed m em

be rs of th e Trus t. One na m ed in su red was Bras h Ty gr , LLC,

w hi ch own ed an d op erat ed th e So ni c Driv e-In res ta ur an t in Carr ol lt on , Mi ss o u r i

.Llo y d an d Nan cy Mi ll er su ed Bras h Ty gr an d it s pr in ci pa ls in Mi ss ou ri st at e co ur t to

reco ve r da m ag es fo r su bs ta nt ia l pe rs on al in juri es su ffer ed whe n a car dr iv en by Ty le r

Ro us h, a Man ag in g Mem be r of Bras h Ty gr , st ru ck Llo y d Mi ll er, a pe de st ria n.

In vo ki ng di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on , Hud so n fil ed th is de cl arat or y jud gm en t act io n ag ai ns t

th e p a r t i es to th e st at e co ur t act io n se ek in g a de cl arat io n th at th e Hire d an d Non

Owned Aut o Liab il it y en do rs em en t to th e po li cy ’s Co m m erci al Gen eral Liab il it y

Co ve rag e Fo rm pr ov id es no co ve rag e to an y de f e n d an t in th e un de rlyin g la wsu it

. Hud so n ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t to de fen da nt s

on th e co ve rag e is su e. W e rev ers e th at rul in g. Defe nd an ts cro ss ap pe al th e co ur t’s

earl ie r ru li ng th at Hud so n is no t co ll at eral ly es to pp ed to co nt es t co ve rag e by th e st at e

co ur t jud gm en t in fav or of th e Mi ll ers in th e un de rlyin g act io n, to whi ch Hud so n was

no t a p art y . W e aff

irm th at rul in g.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Hud so n’ s H ir ed an d N on-Owned Aut o en do rs em en t pr ov id ed

, as rel ev an t he re:

B. NO N-OW

NED AUT O LIABILITY

W e wil l pa y on b e h a lf of th e in su red al l su m s th at th e in su red
sh al l be co m e le ga l l y o bl ig at ed to pa y as da m ag es be cau se of

“ bo di ly i nju ry ” or “ pr op ert y da m ag e” ari si ng o u t o f th e us e of a

“ no n- own ed au to ” by an y pe rs on ot he r th an y ou in th e co ur se of

y ou r bu si ne ss

.

Ty le r Ro us h was dr iv in g a car he joi nt ly own ed wit h hi s m ot he r, Sh aro n Ro us h, whe n

th e acci de nt oc cu rred on Aug us t 3, 2 0 0 9

, w h il e Hud so n’s po li cy was in effe ct

. Hud so n arg ue s th at un di sp ut ed fact s es ta bl is h th at Ty le r Ro us h was no t us in g th e car

“in th e co ur se of [Bra sh Ty gr ’s] bu si ne ss ,” so th e po li cy pr ov id ed no co ve rag e.

Defen da nt s ar gu e th at un di sp ut ed fact s es ta bl is h th at Ty le r was us in g t he car i n t he

co ur se of Bras h Tygr’s bu si ne ss

. Defen da nt s ha ve th e bu rd en of pr oo f on th is

-2

-co ve rag e is su e. See J.E. Jo ne s Co ns tr. Co

. v. Ch ub b & So ns , In c., 48 6 F.3 d 33 7, 34 0

(8 th Cir . 20 07 ) (ap pl y in g M is so ur i l aw). The f ol lo win g fa ct s ar e u nd is pu te d.

The A c ci de nt

. Sh aro n Ro us h as ke d Ty le r to de po si t he r pa y ch eck in he r

pe rs on al ba nk acco un t an d to de li ve r pe rs on al m ai l to th e po st of fic e. Ty le r fir st

tra ve l ed fro m hi s pa ren ts ’ ho m e, whe re he was st ay in g, to th e ba nk an d de po si te d

Sh aro n’s ch eck

. Befo re Ty le r le ft, a ba nk em pl oyee ha nd ed Ty le r ba nk de po si t ba gs

th at th e So ni c Driv e-In us ed to m ak e cas h de po si ts

. Ty le r di d no t wor k at th e Driv eIn an d ha d no t in te nd ed to pi ck up de po si t ba gs

. Oth e r B r a s h Tyg r rep res en ta ti ve s

pe rio di cal ly ret rie ve d de po si t ba gs , whi ch th e ba nk us ed fo r ad ve rti si ng

. Bras h Ty gr

co ul d m ak e So ni c de po si ts wit ho ut us in g th e ba gs , an d th ere is no ev id en ce th at a

Bras h Ty gr rep res en ta ti ve ev er mad e a sp eci al tri p to th e ba nk to pi ck up de po si t

ba gs

. Ty le r le ft th e ba nk an d p ut th e d ep os it ba gs in hi s car, in te nd in g to ta ke th em

to hi s p a r en ts ’ ho m e so th at on e of th em co ul d ta ke th e ba gs to th e Driv e-In

. Afte r
le av in g t he ba nk , Ty le r dr ov e to ward th e p os t offi ce, away fro m th e Driv e-In bu t in

th e d ire ct io n of hi s pa ren ts ’ ho m e. W hi le m ak in g a le ft tu rn , Ty le r st ru ck an d

se ve rel y in jure d Ll oyd Mi ll er i n a pe de st ria n c ro ss walk

.

The Bras h Ty gr Ent it y

. Bras h Ty gr is a li m it ed li ab il it y co m pa ny (L LC )

,

or ga ni zed un de r C h ap te r 47 of th e Rev is ed St at ut es of Mi ss ou ri to pr ov id e it s

m em be rs an d m an ag ers wit h th e sa m e im m un it y fro m pe rs on al li ab il it y fo r th e

li ab il it ie s of th e LLC t ha t is affo rd ed th e sh areh ol de rs an d e m pl oyees o f a bu si ne ss

co rp or at io n. See Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 34 7.0 57

. The m em be rs of each LLC “ sh al l ad op t

an op er a t i ng ag reem en t” co nt ai ni ng pr ov is io ns “ rel at in g to th e co nd uc t of th e
bu si ne ss an d affa ir s of th e [LLC] an d th e rig ht s, po wers an d du ti es of it s m em be rs ,

m an ag ers , ag en ts or em

pl oyees,” no t u n l i k e th e Mi ss ou ri Gen eral an d Bu si ne ss

Co rp or at io ns Law pr ov is io n th at of fic ers an d ag en ts of a co rp or at io n “ sh al l ha ve su ch

au th or it y an d pe rfo rm su ch du ti es

. . . as m ay be pr ov id ed in t h e b yl a w s , o r

. . . by

res ol ut io n of th e bo ard of di rect or s.” Co m pa re Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 34 7.0 81 .1, wit h Mo

. Rev . Sta t. § 35 1.3 60 .2.

-3

-At th e ti m e of th e a c c i d e n t

, Ty le r he ld a fiv e pe rcen t own ers hi p in te res t in

Bras h Ty gr

. Ro us h In ve st m en ts

, own ed by Ty le r’s pa ren ts

, G e o r g e an d Sh aro n

Ro us h, he ld a se ve nt y pe rcen t in te res t in Bras h Ty gr , a nd Ty le r’s br ot he r, Bran do n

Ro us h, own ed fiv e pe rcen t. The Ju ne 19 94 Ope rat io n Agr eem en t or ga ni zi ng Bras h
Ty gr was si gn ed by R o u s h In ve st m en ts

, Ty le r, an d Bran do n, who were na m ed th e Orig in al Man ag in g M em be rs . The Agreem en t pro vi de d, “ Each Man ag in g Mem be r

ha s th e po wer, on be ha lf of th e Co m pa ny, to do al l th in gs ne ces sa ry or co nv en ie nt to

carr y ou t th e bu si ne ss an d affa irs of th e Co m pa ny.” In Aug us t 20 09

, Ty le r was st il l

a Man ag in g Mem

be r bu t had no t wor ke d at th e So ni c Driv e-In fo r ni ne te en y ears

.

The Und erl y in g Lawsu it

. Llo y d an d Nan cy Mi ll er’s st at e co ur t act io n as se rte d

in di vi du al to rt cl ai m s ag ai ns t Ty le r, Sh ar on, an d G eo rg e Ro ush se ek ing co m pe ns at or y

a n d p u n it iv e da m ag es fo r pe rs on al in jury an d lo ss of co ns or ti um

. The Mi ll ers al so

su ed Bras h Ty gr ; Ro us h In ve st m en ts

, In c.; Bran do n Ro us h; an d an ot he r Bras h Ty gr

own er, al le gi ng th ey were vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r Ty le r’s ne gl ig en ce be cau se he act ed

on be ha lf of th e So ni c fran ch is e whi le at th e ba nk

. Hud so n acce pt ed B r as h Ty gr ’s

te nd er of th e de fen se of th e act io n bu t res erv ed th e rig ht to co nt es t it s du t y to

in de m ni fy an y li ab il it y to th e Mi ll ers

. The st at e co ur t de fen da nt s as se rte d th at Ty le r

was no t act in g as an y on e’s ag en t at th e ti m e of th e acci de nt an d m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n t hi s q ue st io n o f vi cari ou s l ia bi li ty.

W it h th is m ot io n pe nd in g, th e pa rti es un su cces sf ul ly at te m

pt ed to m ed ia te

. Hud so n reject ed pl ai nt iff s’ de m an d th at de fen da nt s se tt le al l cl ai m s a g ai ns t Bras h
Ty gr an d “ th e So ni c de fen da nt s” fo r Hud so n’s po li cy li m it of $1 m il li on

. Pl ai nt iff s reject ed Hud so n’s of

fer of a “ hi gh /l ow” se tt le m en t of $1 m il li on or $3 00 ,00 0, whi ch

wou ld de pe nd on whe th er a jury de te rm in ed th at Ty le r was act in g “ in th e co ur se an d

sc op e of So ni c’s bu si ne ss .” W he n th e So ni c de fen da nt s reject ed Hud so n’s de fen se

un de r a res erv at io n of rig ht s an d wit hd rew th ei r m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e
vi cari ou s li ab il it y is su e, Hud so n fil ed t h i s d e cl arat or y jud gm en t act io n in fed eral

co ur t, n am in g a ll pa rti es to th e u nd erl y in g a ct io n a s d efen da nt s.

-4

-One week la te r, th e So ni c de fen da nt s en te red in to a se tt le m en t ag reem en t wit h

th e Mi ll ers pu rs ua nt to Mo . R ev . S ta t. § 53 7.0 65

. Co ns is te nt wit h th at ag reem en t, 1

Bras h Ty gr an d Ty le r Ro us h th en ad m it te d each of pl ai nt iff s’ th irt y -s ix Req ue st s fo r
Adm is si on in th e un de rlyin g la wsu it

, in cl ud in g an ad m is si on “ th at by pi ck in g up th e

So ni c ba nk de po si t ba gs th at Ty le r Ro us h was co nd uc ti ng th e bu si ne ss of Bras h Ty gr , LLC.” The ne xt da y , th e st at e co ur t en te red de ta il ed fin di ng s of fact an d co nc lu si on s

of la w. Ci ti ng Co rp v. Jo pl in Cem en t Co

., 33 7 S.W .2d 25 2, 25 5 (Mo

. ba nc 19 60 ), as

co nt ro ll in g au th or it y , th e co ur t co nc lu de d th at Tyl e r a c t ed as ag en t of Bras h Ty gr
whe n he “ m ad e a de ci si on to co ll ect th e So ni c ba nk de po si t ba gs whi le at th e ba nk ,”

an d th at th is “ co nc ur ren t pu rp os e” was an ad eq ua te ba si s to fin d th at th e tri p was “ in

th e co ur se an d sc op e of ag en cy .” The fo ll owi ng da y , th e co ur t en te red it s Ju dg m en t,

reci ti ng th at th e act io n “ was tr i e d to th is Co ur t wit h al l pa rti es rep res en te d by

co un se l” an d award in g pl ai nt iff s $5 .3 m il li on in co m

pe ns at or y da m ag es ag ai ns t th e

So ni c d efen da nt s an d $ 50 0,0 00 in pu ni ti ve da m ag es ag ai ns t Ty le r an d B ras h Tygr.

II . Huds on ’s Appea l -- Cov era ge

The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of d e f e n da nt s on th e

co ve rag e is su e, co nc lu di ng th at Ty le r Ro us h was us in g hi s car “ in th e co ur se of
[Bra sh Ty gr ’s] bu si ne ss ” at th e ti m e of th e acci de nt an d t h e r e f o r e Bras h Ty gr ’s

li ab il it y was co ve red by th e Hire d an d Non -Owne d Aut o Liab il it y en do rs em en t in

Hud so n’s p ol ic y

. It is un di sp ut ed th at Ty le r was dri vi ng a “ no n- own ed au to .” The

di sp os it iv e qu es t i o n i s whe th er th e car was be in g us ed “ in th e co ur se of [Bra sh

Sect io n 53 7.0 65 pe rm it s a pl ai nt iff an d “ a to rt- feas o r ” t o ag ree, “ in 1

co ns id erat io n of th e pa y m en t of a sp eci fie d am ou nt ,” th at pl ai nt iff wil l li m it reco ve ry

on an y jud gm en t to as se ts an d in su ran c e po li ci es sp eci fie d in th e ag reem en t. The

M i l l e r s a g r eed no t to co ll ect a fav or ab le jud gm en t fro m th e as se ts of th e So ni c de fen da nt s “ un le ss an d un ti l Pl ai nt iff s an d Defen da nt s ha ve ex ha us te d al l reas on ab le
effo rts to co ll ect th e to ta l am ou nt of sa id jud gm en ts fro m [Hu ds on ] th ro ug h th e fil in g

an d p ro se cu ti on of a ga rn is hm en t ac ti on an d a ‘ ba d fa it h’ laws ui t ag ai ns t Hu ds on .”

-5

-Ty gr ’s] bu si ne ss .” “ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on on cro ss -m ot io ns fo r

s u mm a r y ju dg m en t de no vo .” Hum ph rie s v. Pu la sk i Cn ty. Sp eci al Sch

. Dis t., 58 0

F.3 d 68 8, 69 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). The pa rti es ag ree th at Mi ss ou ri la w go ve rn s th is is su e.

A. In res ol vi ng th e co ve rag e is su e, it is es se nt ia l to id en ti fy th e di st ri ct co ur t’s

pr op er st an da rd of rev ie w in de te rm in in g th e co ur se -o f-b us in es s qu es ti on , whi ch ha s
be en ad dr es se d in rel ev an t Mi ss ou ri cas es in th ree di st in ct co nt ex ts

. F i r s t, in th e

un de rlyin g act io n, th e qu es ti on was cri ti cal to whe t h e r Bras h Ty gr was vi cari ou sl y

li ab le to th e Mi ll ers on th ei r to rt cl ai m s, whi ch tu rn ed on ag en cy la w pr in ci pl es

. As

Hud so n’s se tt le m en t of

fer reco gn iz ed

, th e is su e if di sp ut ed wou ld b e a qu es ti on of

fact fo r a jury. Seco nd

, in Co rp -- th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri de ci si on on whi ch

th e st at e co ur t rel ie d in co nc lu di ng th at Bras h Ty gr was vi cari ou sl y li ab le
-- th e Co ur t

res ol ve d a cl ai m fo r wor ke rs ’ co m pe ns at io n be ne fit s, a st at ut or y reg im e in whi ch th e

in it ia l de c i s i o n

- mak er is an ad m in is tra ti ve ag en cy

. Co ns is te nt wit h pr in ci pl es of

ad m in is tra ti ve la w, Mi ss ou ri co ur ts rev ie w whe th er the ag en cy ’ s de te rm ina tio n of th is

fact -in te ns iv e is su e was “ su pp or te d by c o mp e t en t an d su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce on th e
who le reco rd ,” 33 7 S .W .2d at 2 58

.

Th is cas e in vo lv es th e th ird co nt ex t, whe re th e co ur se -o f-b us in es s is su e
de te rm in es whe th er th ere is co ve rag e un de r an in su ran c e c o n t r a c t. The qu es ti on is

no l e s s f a c t in te ns iv e, bu t “ [a]s wit h an y ot he r co nt ract

, th e in te rp ret at io n of an

in su ran c e c o n t r a c t is ge ne ral ly a qu es ti on of la w, pa rti cu la rly in refe ren ce to th e

qu es ti on of c ov erag e.” D.R. Sh erry Con st r., Ltd . v . Am . F am il y Mu t. In s. Co ., 3 16

S.W .3d 89 9, 90 2 (Mo

. ba nc 20 10 ). A tri al m ay be ne ed ed if th ere is a di sp ut ed is su e

of mat er ia l fact

, as in St at e Farm Mu t. Aut o. In s. Co

. v. All en , 74 4 S.W .2d 78 2, 78 6-

87 (Mo

. ba nc 19 88 ), an d Fi rem en ’s Fu nd In s. Co

. v. Thi en , 8 F

. 3 d 1 3 07 (8 th Ci r.

19 93 ). Bu t whe n th e m at eri al fact s are un di sp ut ed

, th e ul ti m at e qu es ti on -- whe th er

Bras h Ty gr , th e in su red

, ha s co ve rag e be cau se Ty le r Ro us h was act in g “ in th e co ur se

of [it s] bu si ne ss ” wit hi n th e m ean in g of Hud so n’s Non -Owne d Aut o en do rs em en t

-- is a qu es ti on of la w fo r th e co ur t. Am

. St at es In s. Co

. v. Po rte rfi el d, 84 4 S.W .2d 13

,

-6

-14 (Mo

. App

. 19 92 ) ; s e e I n d

. Lum be rm en s Mu t. In s. Co

. v. Tim be rla nd Pal le t &

Lum be r Co ., 19 5 F .3d 36 8, 3 77 (8t h C ir. 1 99 9)

. 2

B. W e ha ve fo un d no Su pr e me C o u r t of Mi ss ou ri de ci si on in te rp ret in g th e

p h r as e “ in th e co ur se of y ou r bu si ne ss ” in th e co nt ex t of a no n- own ed au to

en do rs em en t. “ W he n a st at e’s hi gh es t co ur t ha s no t de ci de d an is su e, it is up to th is

co ur t to pr ed ic t ho w th e st at e’s hi gh es t co ur t wou ld res ol ve th at is su e.” Mi nn

. Su pp ly

Co

. v. Raym on d Co rp ., 47 2 F.3 d 52 4, 53 4 (8t h Cir. 20 06 ). In res ol vi ng th e is su e of

B ras h Ty gr ’s vi cari ou s li ab il it y in th e un de rlyin g act io n, th e st at e co ur t co n c l u d e d

th at th e “ du al pu rp os e” do ct rin e ap pl ie d by th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri in Co rp ,

a wor ke rs ’ co m

pe ns at io n cas e, pr ov id ed th e go ve rn in g st an da rd

. W it ho ut ci ta ti on to

Mi ss ou ri au th or it y , th e di st ric t co ur t ru l e d t h a t “ th e du al pu rp os e do ct rin e, whi le

in st ru ct iv e [is ] no t co nt ro ll in g.

. . . He re, li ab il it y is no t pr em is ed o n t he co nc ep t of

res po nd eat su pe rior or tr ad iti ona l pr incip le s of ag en cy , bu t rat he r Ty le r Ro us h’s st at us

as a Man ag in g M em

be r of a Lim it ed Liab il it y

Co m pa ny.” W e d is ag ree.

The Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri lo ok s to th e pu rp os e be hi nd an i n s u r a nc e

po li cy pr ov is io n to in te rp ret an d ap pl y it

. See Co lu m bi a Mu t. In s. Co

. v. Sch au f, 96 7

S.W .2d 74

, 77 -7 8, 79 (Mo

. ba nc 19 98 ); St at e Farm Mu t. Aut o. In s. Co

. v. W

. Cas

. &

Su r. Co

., 47 7 S.W .2d 42 1, 42 4- 26 (Mo

. ba nc 19 72 ). The pu rp os e of no n- own ed au to

co ve rag e in a co m

m erci al li ab il it y po li cy is to “ pr ot ect th e na m ed in su red un de r th e
do ct rin e of res po nd eat su pe rio r whe n au to m ob il es no t own ed by it [a r e ] us ed in it s
bu si ne ss .” Lin en sc hm id t v. Co nt in en ta l Cas

. Co

., 20 4 S.W .2d 29 5, 30 0 (Mo

. 19 47 );

acco rd Uni on St an da rd In s. Co. v. Hob bs Ren ta l Co rp ., 56 6 F.3d 95 0, 95 3- 54 (1 0t h

Ci r. 20 09 ) (co ns tru in g “ in co nn ect io n wit h [th e in su red ’s] bu si ne ss ”). The refo re, th e

st an da rd ap pl ie d by Mi ss ou ri co ur ts in de te rm in in g whe th er th e in su red is vi cari ou sl y

li ab le sh ou ld al so ap pl y in de te rm in in g th e sc op e of th e in su red ’s no n- own ed ve hi cl e

In th is reg ard

, th e Mi ll ers as “ to rt cl ai m an ts st an d in th e sh oe s of th e in su red .” 2

All en , 74 4 S .W .2d at 7 86

.

-7

-co ve rag e. W he th er th e co m m erci al in su red was or ga ni zed as a bu si ne ss co rp or at io n,

a pa rtn ers hi p, a pr op rie to rs hi p, or a l im it ed li ab il it y co m pa ny is irr el ev an t to th is

in qu iry.

The st at e co ur t’s de ci si on to ap pl y th e du al pu rp o s e d o ct rin e in Co rp in

de ci di ng whe th er Bras h Ty gr was v i cari ou sl y li ab le fo r th e to rt of it s em pl oyee or

ag en t, Ty le r Ro us h, was co ns is te nt wit h de ci si on s of th e Mi ss ou ri Co ur t of App eal s

in to rt cas es

. See Tutt le v. Mue nk s, 96 4 S.W .2d 51 4, 51 8- 19 (Mo

. App

. 19 98 ), an d

Co op er v. Gen

. St an da rd

, In c., 67 4 S.W .2d 11 7, 12 0- 21 (Mo

. App

. 19 84 ), de ci si on s

th at we ap pl ie d as refl ect in g Mi ss ou ri la w in Fack rel l v. Mar sh al l, 49 0 F.3 d 99 7, 10 01

& n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). It is al s o c o n si st en t wit h th e ap pl ic at io n of th e “ bu si ne ss

affa irs ” co ve rag e li m it at io n in Farm Bu reau Town & Co un try In s. Co

. of Mo

. v. Am

. Alt

. In s. Co rp ., 34 7 S.W .3d 52 5, 53 0- 31 (Mo

. A p p. 20 11 ). Lik ewis e, us in g th is

wor ke rs ’ co m

pe ns at io n pr in ci pl e in res ol vi ng an al og ou s qu es ti on s of in su ran ce

co nt ract in te rp ret at io n is in acco rd wit h es ta bl is he d Mi ss ou ri la w. See W ard v. Cu rry , 34 1 S.W .2d 83 0, 83 6 (Mo

. ba nc 19 60 ) (“ In Mi ss ou ri, th e co ur ts co ns is te nt ly tu rn to

th e W or km en ’s Co m

pe ns at io n Act in de te rm in in g th e m ean in g of th e wor d

‘em pl oyee’ as us ed in ex cl us io n c la us es of l ia bi li ty ins ur an ce p ol ic ie s” ).

Fo r th es e reas o n s , w e c on cl ud e th e du al pu rp os e do ct rin e is co nt ro ll in g

Mi ss ou ri l a w in de te rm in in g whe th er Ty le r Ro us h’s pe rs on al erra nd fo r hi s m ot he r

ha d a du al pu rp os e th at was “ in th e co ur se of [Bra sh Ty gr ’s] bu s i ne ss ,” tri gg eri ng

Non -Owne d Aut o co ve rag e un de r Hud so n’s po li cy

. The di st ric t co ur t’s c o n tra ry

co nc lu si on was a n e rro r of law.

C. The du al pu rp os e do ct rin e as ad op te d in M i s s o ur i was ex po un de d by an

em in en t juri st

, Ju dg e (la te r Ju st ic e) Card oz o, in Mar ks ’ Dep en de nt s v. Gray

, 16 7 N.E.

18 1, 18 3 (N.Y. 19 29 ). “ Bri efl y st at ed

, th e do ct rin e is th at if th e wor k of th e em pl oyee

crea te s th e ne ces si ty fo r th e tra ve l, he is in th e co ur se of hi s em pl oym en t, ev en th ou gh

-8

-he at th e sa m e ti m e is se rv in g so m e pu rp os e of hi s own .” Co rp , 33 7 S.W .2d at 25 5.

The Su pr em e Co ur t i n C or p wen t o n t o d efi ne th e d oc tri ne in gre at er d et ai l:

i t i s no t ne ces sa ry th at

, on fai lu re of th e pe rs on al m ot iv e, th e bu si ne s s tri p wo ul d h av e b een tak en an y way by th is pa rt ic ul ar empl oy ee a t t hi s

pa rt ic ul ar ti me

. It is en ou gh th at so m e on e wou ld ha ve ha d to m ak e th e tri p to carr y ou t th e bu si ne ss m is si on

. If th e tri p wou ld ul ti m at el y ha ve ha d to be m ad e, an d if th e em pl oyer go t th is ne ce s sa ry it em of tra ve l

acco m pl is he d by co m

bi ni ng it wit h th e em

pl oyee’s pe rs on al tri p, it

wou ld be a co nc ur re nt ca us e of th e tri p, r a t h e r t ha n an in ci de nt al

ap pe nd ag e or aft ert ho ug ht

. The re is no oc cas io n to weig h th e bu si ne ss

an d p ers on al m ot iv e to de te rm in e whi ch is do min an t

.

Id

. (em ph as is in th e or ig in al ), qu ot in g wit h ap pr ov al Gin ge ll v. W al te rs Co nt ract in g

Co rp ., 30 3 S.W .2d 68 3, 68 8- 89 (Mo

. App

. 19 57 ). Mi ss ou ri ap pe ll at e co ur ts ha ve

co ns is te nt ly ap pl ie d th e do ct rin e as ar t i cu la te d in Co rp an d Gin ge ll

. See, e.g ., McC la in v. Wels h C o., 7 48 S.W .2d 72 0, 7 26 (Mo . App . 19 88 ). 3

Alt ho ug h th e st at e co ur t pu rp or te d to ap pl y th e du al pu rp os e do ct rin e, it di d no t

pr op erl y ap pl y th e do ct rin e be cau se it m ad e no fin di ng th at , if Ty le r Ro us h h ad no t

acce pt ed th e de po si t ba gs whe n a b a n k e mp l o ye e ha nd ed hi m th e ba gs at th e ba nk

,

“ so m e [em

pl oyee or ag en t of Bras h Ty gr ] wou ld ha ve ha d to m ak e th e tr i p to carr y

ou t t he bu si ne ss m is si on .” The ab se nc e of su ch ne ces si ty has be en th e d et erm in in g

fact or in nu m ero us cas es th at refu se d to ap pl y th e du al p u r p o s e do ct rin e. See

McM ai n v. J.J

. Co nn or & So ns Co ns tr. Co

., 85 S.W .2d 43

, 45 (Mo

. 19 35 ); W il li am s

An im po rta nt li m it at io n is th at th e du a l pu rp os e do ct rin e do es no t ap pl y 3

“ [w]here at the ti m e of an acci de nt th e se rv an t or agen t de vi at es or de pa rts fro m th e

us ua l or m os t di rect ro ut e whi ch he wou ld or di na ril y fo ll ow i n u s i n g th e car on th e

own er’s bu si ne ss , an d go es of f on so m e erra nd or fo r so m e pu rp os e who ll y hi s own .”

Pars on s v. Kay ’s Hom e Co ok in g, In c., 83 0 S.W .2d 46

, 49 (Mo

. App

. 19 92 ) (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

. Here, the pa rti es vi go ro us ly de ba te whe th er Ty le r’s tri p t o th e po st of fic e

was su ch a de vi at io n. We nee d n ot res ol ve th is is su e.

-9

-v. Serv ic em as te r, 90 7 S.W .2d 19 3, 19 4 (Mo

. App

. 19 95 ) (“ The du al pu rp os e do ct rin e

. . . req ui res th at th e em

pl oyee’s wor k crea te th e ne c e s si ty fo r tra ve l.”) ; W in es v.

Goo dyear Tire & Ru bb er Co

., 24 6 S.W .2d 52 5, 53 0 (Mo

. App

. 19 52 ) (p ro cu rin g

ga so li ne to us e th e car in th e em pl oyer’s bu si ne ss th e ne xt da y “ was m erel y cas ua l

an d in ci de nt al to a pu rel y pe rs on al pl eas ur e tri p” ); Dug ga n v. Too m bs -Fay S as h &

Doo r Co

., 66 S.W .2d 97 3 (Mo

. App

. 19 33 ); Peer le ss In s. Co

. v. Ro ed de r, No.

4: 08 CV7 29 , 20 09 W L 21 19 21 , at * 4 (E.D. Mo . Jan . 23 , 20 09 ).

Here, de fen da n t s s u b mi tt ed no ev id en ce th at so m e So ni c em pl oyee or Bras h
Ty gr ag en t wou ld ha ve ha d to m ak e a sp eci al tri p to th e ba nk fo r de po si t ba gs if Ty le r

ha d no t br ou gh t th em to hi s pa ren ts ’ ho m e. And th ere was un di sp ut ed ev id en ce to th e

co nt rary. Ty le r te st ifi ed he ha d ne ve r pi ck ed up ba gs

. Mo re te ll in gl y , in a Decem be r

10

, 20 10

, affi da vi t, aft er st at in g th at he was th e Pres id en t of Ro us h In ve st m en ts

, In c.,

an d ha d be en in vo lv ed in m an ag in g th e Carr ol lt on So ni c Driv e-In si nc e 19 78

, Geo rg e

Ro us h ave rred : “ Pri or to an d on Aug us t 3 , 20 09 , Son ic ha d n um ero us ba nk ba gs at

it s di sp os al an d di d no t mak e sp eci al tr ip s to Ca rr ol l Co un ty Tr us t Co mpa ny to pi ck

up ba nk ba gs

. . . . The ba nk ba gs th em se lv es were no t re qu ire d t o m ak e d ep os it s at

Caro ll Co un ty Trus t Com pa ny.” (Em

ph as is ad de d.) On th is reco rd

, th e un di sp ut ed

fact s es ta bl is he d th at pi ck in g up th e ba gs was a m at te r of co nv en ie nc e, no t ne ces si ty,

fo r Bras h Ty gr an d th e So ni c Driv e-In

. Ty le r’s acce pt in g th e un so li ci te d ba gs fro m

a ba nk em

pl oyee was a “ cas ua l an d in ci de nt al ” as pe ct of a pu rel y pe rs on al tri p th at

di d no t gi ve th at tri p a du al bu si ne ss pu rp os e un de r Mi ss ou ri law. The refo re, at th e

ti m e of th e acci de nt

, Ty le r was no t act in g “ in th e co ur se of [Bra sh Ty gr ’s] bu si ne ss ”

as a m at te r of la w , an d Hud so n is en ti tl ed to su m m ary jud gm en t on th e co ve rag e
is su e. 4

Bec au se of ou r res ol ut io n o f t hi s is su e, we ne ed no t co ns id er Hud so n’s

4

al te rn at iv e co nt en ti on th at it was rel ie ve d o f an y li ab il it y by Brash Ty gr ’s fai lu re to

no ti fy Hud so n o f th e Mi ll ers ’ Seco nd Am en de d P et it io n i n t he un de rlyin g a ct io n.

-1 0-II I. Defe nda nts ’ Cro ss Appea l -- Col la tera l Es to ppel

Defen da nt s cro ss ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th ei r m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, arg ui ng th at th e d o c t rin e of co ll at eral es to pp el ba rs Hud so n fro m

“ rel it ig at in g” th e co ve rag e is su e aft er th e st at e co ur t r u l ed th at Bras h Ty gr was
vi cari ou sl y li ab le to th e Mi ll ers fo r Ty le r Ro us h’s ne gl ig en ce. Thi s is an al te rn at iv e

arg um en t in su pp or t of th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on , an un ne ces sa ry cro ss -ap pe al th at

“ co m pl ic at es br ie fin g sc he du le s an d th e nu m be r an d le ng th of br ie fs in way s th at m ay

ge ne rat e m or e co nf

us io n t ha n e nl ig ht en m en t.” 15 A W rig ht & Mil le r, Fed

. Pra c. &

Pro c. § 39 04 at p. 20 5 (2 d ed

. 19 91 ). The refo re, we di sm is s th e cro ss -ap pe al bu t wil l

co ns id er t he m eri ts of d efen da nt s’ alt ern at iv e arg um en t i n s up po rt.

“ In te rp ret at io n of an in su ran ce po li cy an d ap pl ic at io n of co ll at eral es to pp el are

m at te rs of st at e la w.” All st at e In s. Co

. v. Bl ou nt

, 49 1 F.3 d 90 3, 90 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ).

Co rrec tl y ci ti ng th e fact or s Mi ss ou ri co ur ts co ns id er in ap pl y in g co ll at eral es to pp el

,

se e J a mes v

. Pau l, 49 S.W .3d 67 8, 68 2- 85 (Mo

. ba nc 20 01 ), th e di st ric t co ur t

co nc lu de d th at Hud so n was no t in pr iv it y wit h an y p a r ty in th e un de rlyin g act io n
be cau se , li ke th e in su rer in Ja m es , “ th e Mi ll ers , Ty le r Ro us h an d Bras h Ty gr

. . . ha d

an in te res t in sh ift in g th e ob li ga ti on to pa y da m ag es on to Hud so n.” Tha t co nc lu si on

was cl earl y co rrec t. The co ur t fu rth er c o n c lu de d th at “ Hud so n ha s no t ha d an y

op po rtu ni ty, le t al on e a fu ll an d fai r op po rtu ni ty, to li ti ga te co ve rag e is su es .” Und er

Mi ss ou r i l a w , th e co ur t ex pl ai ne d, Hud so n co ul d no t in te rv en e in th e un de rlyin g

act io n aft er Bras h Tyg r , i t s i ns ur ed

, reject ed Hud so n’s of fer to de fen d un de r a

res erv at io n of rig ht s. Thu s, “ [i]f de fen da nt s’ arg um en ts were to be acce pt ed

, it wou ld

m ean th at th e in su ran ce co m pa ny wou l d h a v e n o fo ru m in whi ch to rai se co ve rag e

qu es ti on s.

. . . Mi ss ou ri cas e la w is cl ear th at co ll at eral es to pp el sh ou ld no t be ap pl ie d

whe re to do so wou ld be in eq ui ta bl e.” W e ag ree. W he n Hud so n’s in su red co nc ed ed

vi cari ou s li ab il it y in ex ch an ge fo r th e Mi ll ers ’ ag reem en t to se ek reco ve ry of th e

co ll us iv e jud gm en t in a la wsu it as se rti ng ba d fai th by Hud so n, it wou ld be in eq ui ta bl e

to ba r Hud so n fro m rai si ng it s co ve rag e de fen se s in th is de cl arat or y jud gm en t act io n,

-1 1-or in de fen se o f a n a c t i o n by d efen da nt s ag ai ns t Hud so n. See Ja m es , 4 9 S.W .3d at

68 9; Co x v . Ste ck , 99 2 S .W .2d 22 1, 2 24 (Mo . App . 19 99 ).

Defen da nt s arg ue th at Hud so n is ba rred by th e ru le th at

, in an act io n to

de te rm in e co ve rag e, an in su rer is bo un d by th e jud gm en t in th e un de rlyin g acti on if

it ha d an op po rtu ni ty to co nt ro l th at li ti ga ti on bu t refu se d to do so

. Thi s ru le do es no t

pr ecl ud e th e in su rer fro m li ti ga ti ng co ve rag e is su es in a la te r la ws u i t

. S e e Dren ne n

v. W ren , 41 6 S.W .2d 22 9, 23 4- 36 (Mo

. App

. 19 67 ); Co x, 99 2 S.W .2d at 22 6.

Mo reo ve r, de fen da nt s ci te no au th or it y fo r th ei r co nt en ti on th at th e ru le ap pl ie s whe n

th e in su rer, rat he r th an wro ng fu ll y refu si ng to de fen d, ha s it s on -g oi ng de fen se un de r

a res erv at io n of rig ht s te rm in at e d b y t h e in su red

, who th en en te rs in to a § 53 7.0 65

se tt le m en t ag reem en t an d, act in g i n it s co nf li ct in g se lf- in te res t, co ns pi res wit h
pl ai nt iff s in th e un de rlyin g act io n to pr ecl ud e th e in su rer fro m li ti ga ti ng it s co ve rag e
de fen se s. Se e J a mes , 4 9 S.W .3d at 68 9; Co x, 99 2 S.W .2d at 22 5. At th e cri ti cal

st ag es of th e un de rlyin g act io n in th is cas e, Hud so n was de pr iv ed of it s “ op po rtu ni ty

to co nt ro l an d m an ag e” th at li ti ga ti on

. Sch m it z v. Great Am

. Ass ur

. Co

., 33 7 S.W .3d

70 0, 7 09 (Mo . ban c 2 01 1)

.

IV. Con cl us io n

In ap pe al No. 13 -1 68 8, we co nc lu de th at Hud so n is en ti tl ed to su m m ary j udgm en t de cl ari ng th at Co m m erci al Lin es Mas te r Po li cy No. HQSR0 20001 pr ovi de s

no co ve rag e fo r th e cl ai m s as se rte d in th e un de rlyin g la wsu it be cau se de fen da nt Ty le r

Ro us h was no t act in g in th e co ur se of de fen d a nt Bras h Ty gr ’s bu si ne ss wit hi n th e

m ean in g o f th e Po li cy ’s Hired an d No n- Owned Aut o Li ab il it y en do rs em en t.

W e di sm is s th e ap pe al in No. 13 -1 74 2. W e fu rth er co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t

co rrec tl y ru le d th at de fen da nt s are no t en ti tl ed to su m m ary jud gm en t on th e ba si s of

co ll at eral est op pe l an d t he refo re af fir m th e co ur t’s Ord er fi le d M arch 30 , 20 12

.

-1 2-The jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t is rev ers ed

, an d th e cas e is rem an de d fo r th e

en try of a fi na l ju dg m en t co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d d is se nt in g i n p art

.

Fo r al l th e reas on s st at ed in Sect io n III of th e m ajor it y 's op in io n, I ag ree
Hud so n is no t co ll at eral ly es to pp ed fro m li ti ga ti ng th e co ve rag e di s p u t e a t i ss ue in

th is cas e. See All st at e In s. Co

. v. Bl ou nt

, 49 1 F.3 d 90 3, 90 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (ap pl y in g

Mi ss ou ri la w an d reco gni zi ng sta te co ur t pr oceed in gs co nd uc te d pu rs ua nt to Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 53 7.0 65 di d no t de pr iv e an in su rer of it s rig ht to be he ard la te r on th e qu es ti on

of po li cy co ve rag e )

. I al so ag ree Mi ss ou ri' s du al pu rp os e do ct rin e co nt ro ls in

de te rm in in g whe th er Ty le r Ro us h was act in g in th e co ur se of Bras h Ty gr 's bu si ne ss
whe n h e st ru ck an d s ev erel y in jure d a pe de st ria n wh il e d riv in g h is m ot he r's car.

I di sa gr ee, ho wev er, wit h th e m a jori ty's ap pl ic at io n of th e du al pu rp os e
do ct rin e to th e un di sp ut ed fact s of th is cas e. I th eref or e res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fro m th e
de ci si on to rev ers e th e su m m ary jud gm en t gr an te d to Bras h Ty gr on th e c o v e r ag e
is su e.

I

As th e m ajor it y ack no wled ge s, un de r Mi ss ou ri' s du al pu rp os e do ct rin e "[i ]t is

en o u g h t h a t so m e on e wou ld ha ve ha d to m ak e th e tri p to carr y ou t th e bu si ne ss

m is si on ." Co rp v. Jo pl in Cem en t Co

., 33 7 S.W .2d 25 2, 25 5 (Mo

. 1 9 60 ). The

m ajor it y cl ai m s Bras h Ty gr su bm it te d no ev id en ce th at so m e So ni c em pl oyee wou ld

ha ve ha d to m ak e a tri p to th e ba nk fo r th e de po si t ba gs if Ty le r Ro us h ha d no t do ne

so

. To th e co nt rary, th e fact th at Bras h Ty gr rep res en ta ti ve s pe rio di cal ly wen t to th e
b an k to ret rie ve th e So ni c ba nk de po si t ba gs was un di sp ut ed

. In de ed

, Hud so n

sp eci fic al ly adm it te d t ha t fa ct in th e su m m ary jud gm en t p ro ceed in gs

.

-1 3-I n i t s o r d er gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t, th e di st ric t co ur t li st ed a nu m be r of

un di sp ut ed fact s. One of th e un di sp ut ed fact s in th is cas e was th at "Br as h Ty gr , LLC,

us ed ba nk ba gs pr ov id ed by Carr ol l Co un ty Trus t Co m pa ny to m ak e de po si ts to Bras h
Ty gr , LLC's ch eck in g acco un t at Carr ol l Co un ty Trus t Co m pa ny." Add en du m at 22

. A se co nd un di sp ut ed fact was th at "[o ]n oc cas io ns be fo re Aug us t 3, 20 0 9

, a

rep res en ta ti ve of Bras h Ty gr , LLC

, pe rio di cal ly wen t to Carr ol l Co un ty Trus t to

ret rie ve th e So ni c ba nk de po si t ba gs ." Id

. The di st ric t co ur t ci te d Hud so n's Res po ns e

to Bras h Ty gr 's St at em en t of Unc on tro ve rte d Fact s in su pp or t of th es e two un di sp ut ed

fact s. See id

.

In Bras h Ty gr 's St at em en t o f Unc on tro ve rte d Fact s su bm it te d in acco rd an ce
wit h Loc al Ru le 56 .1 of th e W es t e r n Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, Bras h Ty gr ha d av erre d 5

th at "[p ]rior to an d i nc lu di ng Aug us t 3 , 20 09 , a rep res en ta ti ve of Bras h Tygr, LLC,

pe rio di cal ly wen t to Carr ol l Cou nt y Trus t to ret rie ve th e So ni c ba nk de po si t bag s."

Dis t. Ct

. Doc ke t Ent ry No.1 3 at 24

. In it s res po ns e, H u d s on sp eci fic al ly

ack no wled ge d it was "u nc o n t r o ve rte d th at Bras h Ty gr , LLC

. . . us ed ba nk ba gs

pr ov id ed by Carr ol l Co un ty T ru st Co m pa ny to m ak e d ep os it s t o B ras h Tygr, LLC's

ch eck in g acco un t at Carr ol l Co un ty Trus t Co m pa ny." Dis t. Ct

. Doc ke t Ent ry No. 36

Loc al Ru le 56 .1 p ro vi de s as fol lo ws: 5

Su gg es ti on s in op po si ti on to a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t sh al l be gi n wit h a se ct io n th at co nt ai ns a co nc is e li st in g of m at eri al fact s as to whi ch
th e pa rty co nt en ds a ge nu in e is su e ex is ts

. Each fact in di sp ut e sh al l be

se t fo rth in a se pa rat e pa rag rap h, sh al l refe r sp eci fic al ly to th os e po rti on s

o f th e reco rd up on whi ch th e op po si ng pa rty rel ie s, an d, if ap p l i c a b l e , sh al l st at e th e p a rag rap h nu m be r in m ov an t's li st in g of fact s th at is
d i s p u t ed

. All fact s se t fo rth in th e st at em en t of th e m ov an t sh al l b e de em ed ad

m it te d fo r t h e p ur po se of su m m ar

y ju dg m ent unl

es s
sp eci fic al ly co nt ro ver te d b

y th e o pp os in g p ar ty

.

W .D. Mo. R. 5 6.1 (a) (e m ph as is ad de d)

.

-1 4-at 8. Hud so n al so ack no wled ge d i t was "[u ]con tro ve rte d th at on oc cas io ns be fo re

Aug us t 3, 20 09

, a rep re s e n t a t i v e of Bras h Ty gr , LLC, pe rio di cal ly wen t to Carr ol l

Co un ty T ru st to ret rie ve th e So ni c b an k d ep os it ba gs ." Id

.

Hud so n th eref

or e ad m it te d ba nk de p o si t ba gs were us ed in th e co ur se of

So ni c's bu si ne ss , and so m eo ne fro m So ni c o r Bras h Ty gr m ad e p eri od ic tri ps to th e
ba nk to ret rie ve th e ba gs

. See W .D. Mo

. R. 56 .1(a ); se e al so Mi ss ou r i Hou s. Dev

. Co m m 'n v. Bri ce, 91 9 F.2 d 13 06

, 1 3 1 5 ( 8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) ("[ A] dm is si on s in th e pl ead in gs are bi nd in g on th e pa rti es an d m ay su pp or t su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t th e

pa rty m ak in g su ch ad m is si on s." ). Giv en Hud so n's ad m is si on un de r Loc al Ru le 56 .1,

th e m ajor it y 's refe ren ce to pa rt s o f th e reco rd it cl ai m s are in co ns is te nt wit h th e
ad m is si on are irr el ev an t. See Harri s v

. I n t e r s t at e Bran ds Co rp ., 34 8 F.3 d 76 1, 76 2
(8th Ci r. 20 03 ) (co nc lu di ng a di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d

on fact s de em ed ad m it te d un de r Loc al Ru le 56 .1 of th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri) ;

se e al so Nw. Ba nk & Trus t Co . v. Fi rs t Il l. Nat 'l. Ba nk , 35 4 F .3d 72 1, 72 5 (8 th Ci r.

20 03 ) ("Di st ric t co ur ts are no t ob li ge d in ou r ad ve rs ary s y st em to sc ou r th e reco rd

lo ok in g fo r fact ua l di sp ut es an d m ay ad op t l o c al ru le s reas on ab ly de si gn ed to

st ream li ne th e res ol ut io n of su m m ary j udgm en t m oti ons. ") (q uotin g W al dr id ge v. Am

. Hoe ch st Co rp ., 24 F.3d 91 8, 9 22 (7t h C ir. 1 99 4) ).

Mo reo ve r, no m at te r ho w m an y de po si t ba g s S o n i c m ay ha ve ha d at it s
di sp os al

, th e res ta ur an t's un di sp ut ed us e of th e ba gs wo u l d ne ces si ta te a tri p to th e
ba nk at s o me p o i n t t o r et rie ve th em – th e co ur t can no t be po si ti ng th at So ni c ha d a

li mit le ss su pp ly of de po si t b ag s.

I th eref or e be li ev e th e m ajor it y 's d eci si on is in co ns is te nt wit h Mi ss ou ri' s

ap pl ic at io n o f th e du al pu rp os e do ct rin e in at lea st two res pe ct s. Fi rs t, t he m ajor it y

in di cat es Bras h Ty gr wa s r e q u ire d to su bm it ev id en ce sh owi ng "s om e So ni c

em pl oyee or Bras h Ty gr Age nt wou ld ha ve ha d to m ak e a sp eci al tri p to th e ba nk fo r
de po si t ba gs if Ty le r Ro us h ha d no t bro ug ht th em to hi s pare nt s' ho m e." Ant e at 10

-1 5-(em

ph as is ad de d)

. Mi ss ou ri la w do es no t, ho wev er, req ui re Bra s h Tyg r t o pr ov e

ret rie vi ng th e de po si t ba gs req ui red a "s pe ci al " tri p. See Co rp , 33 7 S

. W. 2 d a t 25 5
("[ I]t is no t ne ces sa ry th at

. . . th e bu si ne ss tri p wou ld ha ve be en ta ke n an y way by th is

pa rt ic ul ar

empl oy ee a t th is pa rt ic ul ar ti me. It is en ou gh th at so m e o ne wou ld ha ve

ha d to m ak e th e tri p to carr y ou t th e bu si ne ss m is si on .") Neit he r do es Mi ss ou ri la w

req ui re Bras h Ty gr to pr ov e Ty le r Ro us h hi m se lf ha d pi ck ed up th e ba gs on pr ev io us

oc cas io ns

. Rat he r, by ack no wled gi ng ba nk de po si t b ag s wer e us ed in th e co ur se of

Bras h Ty gr 's bu si ne ss , a nd th at Bras h Tygr rep res en ta ti ve s p eri od ic al ly w en t to th e
ba nk to ret rie ve th e d ep os it ba gs , Hud so n n eces sa ril y ad m it te d t he tri ps to th e ba nk

se rv ed a bu si ne ss pu rp os e. As a co ns eq ue nc e, Ty le r Ro us h's pa rti cu la r tri p on Aug us t

3 fe ll sq ua rel y

wit hi n M is so ur i's du al pu rp os e d oc tri ne

.

Seco n d

, th e m ajor it y rel ie s up on Geo rg e Ro us h's av erm en t th at "[t ]he ba nk

ba gs th em se lv es were no t req ui red to m ak e de po si ts at C a rro ll Co un ty Trus t

Co m pa ny." Ant e at 10 (q uo ti ng Ro us h's affi da vi t da te d Decem be r 10

, 20 10 ). Thi s

6

po in t is irr el ev an t, b e c a u s e th e fact th at th e ba nk ba gs were ac tu al ly us ed in th e

co ur se of Bras h Ty gr 's bu si ne ss was un di sp ut ed

. Our on ly in qu iry sh ou ld be whe th er

th e Aug us t 9 tri p se rv ed a du al pu r p o s e, gi ve n th e un di sp ut ed fact th at Bras h Ty gr

The or ig in of Ro us h's Decem be r 20 10 affi da vi t is du bi ou s. It was creat ed at 6

a ti m e whe n a n a tt or ne y

hi red by H ud so n re pr es en te d B ras h Tygr in th e un de rlyin g Mi ll er la wsu it ( B r a s h Tyg r su bs eq ue nt ly hi red a di ffer en t at to rn ey to ne go ti at e th e

se tt le m en t of th e Mi ll er la wsu it ). Ro us h's st at em en t a p p e ars to be ba se d on a de po si ti on th e Hud so n- hi red at to rn ey to ok of a ba nk rep res en ta ti ve a co up le m on th s earl ie r, in whi ch th e at to rn ey as ke d "J us t ou t of cu rio si ty, do y ou r bu si ne ss es th at do
bu si ne ss wit h y ou ne ed a ba g to m ak e a ni gh t de po si t

. . .? " The ba nk rep res en ta ti ve

res po nd ed "No

. The y can m ak e it wit h a n e nv el op e or th ey co ul d th ro w th e cas h in
th ere i f th ey wan te d to do th at

. I wou ld n't do it

, bu t." Dep os it io n of Ben Po le n, App 'x a t 9 15

. I am no t at al l su rp ris ed th at a fas t fo od res ta ur an t – op en aft er reg ul ar ba nk in g ho ur s and rece iv in g larg e am ou nt s of cas h du rin g th at ti m e – cu st om ari ly us es ba nk
de po si t ba gs to ge t cas h sa fel y to th e ba nk

. In fact

, I wou ld be su rp ris ed if a fas t fo od

res ta ur an t d id no t fo ll ow s uc h a pra ct ic e.

-1 6-act ua ll y us ed ba nk de po si t ba gs an d m ad e tri ps to th e ba nk to ret rie ve th e ba gs in th e

or di na ry co ur se of it s bu si ne ss

. By rel y in g up on th e fact th at us e of th e ba nk de po si t

ba gs was no t r e q u i r e d

, th e m ajor it y im pr op erl y fo cu se s on th e ne ces si ty of th e

un de rlyin g b us in es s p ract ic e rat he r th an th e ne ces si ty o f th e tr ip . In o th er wo rd s, i t

is on e th in g to ex am in e whe th er a pa rti cu la r tri p ha s a ne ces sa ry bu si ne ss pu rp os e;

it is an ot he r th in g en ti rel y to q ue st io n whe th er a pa rti cu la r bu si ne ss pr act ic e is

ne ces sa ry

.

I do no t be li ev e Mi ss ou ri la w su pp or ts th e m ajor it y 's ap pr oa ch

. Fo r ex am pl e,

th e m ajor it y ci te s McM ai n v. J.J

. Co nn or & S o n s C o n s tru ct io n Co

., 85 S.W .2d 43
(Mo . 19 35 ), as on e o f th e cas es in su pp or t o f it s h ol di ng

. In McM ai n, t he Mi ss ou ri

Su pr em e Co ur t de te rm in ed a tri p ta ke n by G e or ge McM ai n in th e co ur se of hi s

em pl oym en t fel l ou ts id e th e du al pu rp os e do ct rin e. The bu si ne ss pr act ic e at is su e was

McM ai n's pr ep arat io n of se m im on th ly pa y ro ll su m m ari es at hi s lo cat io n in Sed al ia

, Mi ss ou ri, an d su bs eq ue nt su bm is si on of th e su m m ari es to th e ho m e of

fic e in Kan sa s
Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri. The co ur t no te d it was cu st om ary fo r McM ai n to m ai l th e su m m ari es , bu t on at le as t on e oc cas io n McM ai n's wife ha d p e r s o na ll y de li ve red a su m m ary to

Kan sa s Ci ty, an d th e co m pa ny pr es id en t "g ue ss ed " McM ai n w a s au th or iz ed to

pe rs on al ly del iv er t he su m m ari es rat he r th an m ai l t he m . 85 S.W .2d at 4 4.

Dur in g th e tri p at is su e, McM ai n de ci de d to ha nd -d el iv er th e su m m ari es whi le

on a pe rs on al tri p to Kan sa s Ci ty rat he r th an fo ll ow th e cu st om ary pr act ic e of m ai li ng

th e su m m ari es

. The co ur t de te rm in ed th e pe rs on al tri p fel l ou ts id e th e du al pu rp os e
do ct rin e be cau se th e no rm al bu si ne ss pr act ic e ha d be en to m ai l th e su m m ari es rat he r

th an pe rs on al ly de li ve r th em , an d th us McM ai n's du ti es "d id no t req ui re hi m to

pe rs on al ly de li ve r th e su m m ar[i es ] to th e Kan sa s Ci ty of fic e." Id

. at 46

. Si gn ifi can tl y , ho wev er, th e co ur t di d no t qu es ti on th e ne ces si ty of th e un de rlyin g
b us in es s pr act ic e, th at is

, whe th er McM ai n's em pl oyer was re qu ir ed to pr ep a r e

su m m ari es an d tra ns m it th em fro m Sed al ia to Kan sa s Ci ty. To th e co nt rary, th e co ur t

-1 7-on ly ex am in ed McM a i n ' s tri p to de te rm in e whe th er it ha d a ne ces sa ry bu si ne ss

pu rp os e.

H e r e, in co nt ras t, th e m ajor it y im pl ic it ly rel ie s up on an ex am in at io n of th e

ne ces si ty of th e un de rlyin g bu si ne ss pr act ic e – th e u s e of ba nk de po si t ba gs – to

co nc lu de a pa rti cu la r tri p was un ne ces sa ry

. And th e co ur t do es so de sp it e th e fact th at

Hud so n ad m it te d th e cu st om ary m an ne r in whi ch Bras h Ty gr co nd uc te d it s bu si ne ss

was to us e ba nk de po si t bag s, and to oc cas io na ll y m ak e tr ip s t o t he ba nk to ret rie ve

th e b ag s.

II

Sect io n II.C. of th e m ajor it y 's op in io n is ba se d on a reci ta ti on of fact s di rect ly

i nc on si st en t wit h an un di sp ut ed fact ad m it te d by Hud so n. As a co ns e q u e n c e , I

res pe ct f u l l y d i s s e nt fro m th at po rti on of th e m ajor it y 's op in io n an d it s de ci si on to

rev ers e th e su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Bras h Tygr on th e is su e o f co ve rag e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 8-