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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 2- 19 70

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

Uni ve rs al Co op erat iv es , Inc .; Un iv ers al Cro p P ro te ct io n Al li an ce, LLC

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

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

AAC Flyin g S erv ic e, In c.; C art il la r Ent erp ris es , Inc .; Cr id er's Flying Serv ic e;

Fo ld en Avi at io n, In c.; F or res t Fl y in g S erv ic es , Inc

.

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

an ts - App el le es

Fren ch Agri Serv ic es , Inc

.

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

an t

Jo hn so n F lying Serv ic es , Inc .; Ken Grub bs Aero , Inc .; Mi le s Fl y in g S erv ic e, In c.;

Sco tt Flying Serv ic e, In c.; Whi rlwi nd Avi at io n, In c.

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

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

15 , 20 13
Fil ed : M arch 26 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Uni ve rs al Cro p Pro te ct io n All ia nc e, LLC, a fo rm ul at or an d di st rib ut or of a

h e r b i c i d e kn own as 2,4 -D (o r 2,4 -D Am in e), an d it s pa ren t co m pa ny, Uni ve rs a l

Co op erat iv es (co ll ect iv el y , “ Uni ve rs al ”), su cces sf ul ly de fen de d a la wsu it br ou gh t by

a gr ou p of co tt on farm ers in Ark an sa s st at e co ur t fo r da m ag es ari si ng fro m of f-t arg et

aeri al ap pl ic at io n of th e he rb ic id e. Uni ve rs al no w su es se ve ral aer i a l h erb ic id e

ap pl ic at or s (co ll ect iv el y , “ Cro p Dus te rs ”) who were no t pa rti es to th e co tt on farm ers ’

li ti ga ti on , s e e k i n g to reco ve r it s at to rn ey ’s f ees in cu rred du rin g th e co tt on farm ers ’

li ti ga ti on

. Th e d is tri ct co ur t di sm is se d th e co m pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m , 1

pr ed ic ti ng th at

, un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces pr es en te d, th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t

wou ld no t reco gn iz e a cau se of act io n ag ai ns t a th ird pa rty fo r at to rn ey ’s fees in cu rred

in sep arat e li ti ga ti on . Uni ve rs al ap pe al s, an d we a ffi rm

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

In 20 06

, th e Cro p Dus te rs us ed ai rp la ne s or he li co pt ers to ap pl y 2,4 -D to ric e
fie ld s in no rth eas t Arkan sa s, resu lt in g in nu m ero us co m pl ai nt s by co tt on farm ers of

of f

- t arg et sp ray dr ift

. The us e of 2,4 -D is he av il y reg ul at ed

, an d it is ap pr ov ed fo r
aeri al ap pl ic at io n on ly un de r li m it ed at m os ph eri c te m pe rat ur e an d win d con di ti on s.

In ad di ti on , th e he rb ic id e was no t ap pr ov ed fo r an y us e o n r i c e f i el ds in Ark an sa s
du rin g 20 06 (al th ou gh it ha s be en ap pr ov ed fo r su ch us e in ot he r y ears bo th be fo re

an d aft er 20 06 ). Th e Ark an sa s St at e Pl an t Bo ard an d th e Uni ve rs it y of Ark an sa s

Ext en si on Serv ic e in ve st ig at ed th e 20 06 co m pl ai nt s an d co nclud ed th at th e sp ray dr ift

m os t li ke ly res ul te d fro m ap pl ic at io n of 2,4 -D du rin g un ap pr ov ed at m os ph eri c

co nd it io ns , co nt rary to la be l in st ru ct io ns an d va rio us reg ul at io ns

. The y al so fo un d

th at so m e o f th e Cro p Du st ers fai le d t o k eep req ui red weat he r an d u sa ge reco rd s.

The Hon or ab le D.P. Mar sh al l, Jr

., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-Abo ut se ve nt y co tt o n f a rm ers su ed a gr ou p of 2,4 -D m an uf act ur ers an d

distr ibu tor s, in cl ud in g Uni ve rs al

, in Ark an sa s st at e co ur t fo r da m ag es ari si ng fro m th e

of f-t arg et sp r a y dr ift

. No aeri al ap pl ic at or s of th e he rb ic id e were na m ed as 2

de fen da nt s. The Ark an sa s st at e co ur t con du ct ed a fiv e-wee k bel lwet he r tri al on th e
cl ai m s of ei gh t of th e co tt on farm ers

. Uni ve rs al de fen de d by pl aci ng th e bl am e fo r an y
da m ag es o n no n- pa rty aeri al ap pl ic at or s. The jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t fo r Uni ve rs al

an d th e ot he r m an uf

act ur ers an d di st rib ut or s. Uni ve rs al la te r se tt le d th e cas e wit ho ut

an y ad m is si on of l ia bi li ty w hi le an ap pe al was p en di ng

.

Uni ve rs al th en in it ia te d t he in st an t d iv ers it y act io n a ga in st th e Cro p Dus te rs ,

se ek in g t o re co ve r ab ou t $1 .5 m il li on in att or ne y ’s fees it in cu rred in de fen di ng th e

co tt on farm ers ’ li ti ga ti on

. Uni ve rs al as se rte d fiv e al te rn at iv e th eo rie s fo r reco ve ry : 3
(1 ) ne gl ig en ce, (2 ) th e Ark an sa s Decep ti ve Trad e Prac ti ces Act (“ ADTPA”), (3 )

im pl ie d in de m

ni ty, (4 ) a cau se of act io n se t fo rth in th e Res ta te m en t (Sec on d) of Tort s § 91 4( 2)

, a n d ( 5 ) a th ird -p art y -li ti ga ti on ex cep ti on to th e Am eri can Ru le fo r

at to rn ey ’s fees

. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e co m pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m

un de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Ci v il Pro ced ur e, pr ed ic ti ng th at th e

Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t wou ld no t ap pl y an y of th e fiv e as se rte d th eo rie s un de r th e
ci rcu m st an ces of th is cas e. On ap pe al

, Uni ve rs al ab an do ns th e im pl i e d i nd em

ni ty

th eo ry bu t ch al le ng es th e d is tri ct co ur t’s ru li ng on th e rem ai ni ng fou r th eo rie s.

A pa ral le l act io n in fe d e r a l co ur t was di sm is se d fo r la ck of di ve rs it y

. Se e 2

Bur ns v. Uni ver

sa l Cr op Pro t. All ia nc e , No. 4 :0 7– cv –5 35 (E.D. Ark.).

W e di rect ed th e pa rti es to f il e su pp le m en ta l br ie fin g as to whe th er th e 3

ci ti zen sh ip of th e pa rti es in th is cas e is co n s i s t e n t w it h th e ex erci se of di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 13 32

. Hav in g rev ie wed th e br ie fin g, we are pe rs ua de d
th at di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on was pr op er i n t h e d is tri ct co ur t (an d th at ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on is pro pe r in th is Co ur t u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 ).

-3

-II

. Dis cus si on

W e rev ie w a di sm is sa l f o r f a i l u re to st at e a cl ai m de no vo

. Fed er er v. Gep ha rd t

, 36 3 F.3 d 75 4, 75 7 (8 t h Ci r. 20 04 ). The pl ai nt iff ’s m at eri al fact ua l

al le ga ti on s m

us t be acce pt ed as tru e, an d di sm is sa l may b e a ffi rm ed on ly wh ere no
rel ie f co ul d be gran te d u nd er an y se t of facts pr ov ab le un de r th e al le ga ti on s. Id

. In

th is di ve rs it y act io n, we m us t pr ed ic t ho w th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Ark an sa s wou ld ru le

on is su es of st at e la w. Fri ed be rg v. Ch ub b & So n, Inc.

, 69 1 F.3d 94 8, 95 1 (8t h Cir.

20 12 ).

A. Neg li

ge nc e

“ Und er Ark an sa s la w, in or de r to pr ev ai l on a cl ai m of ne gl ig en ce, th e pl ai nt iff

m us t pr ov e th at th e de fen da nt owe d a du ty to th e pl ai nt iff

, th at th e de fen da nt

br each ed th e du ty, an d th at th e br each was th e pr ox im at e cau s e of th e pl ai nt iff ’s

in juri es .” Bra ns cu mb v. Free man , 20 0 S.W .3d 41 1, 4 1 6 (Ark

. 20 04 ) (em ph as is

om it te d) . W it h res pe ct to du ty, Ark an sa s l aw do es no t re co gn iz e u ni ve rs al li ab il it y
fo r a ne gl ig en t act io n bu t rat he r re q ui res a du ty ru nn in g fro m th e ne gl ig en t act or

sp eci fic al ly to th e pl ai nt if f

. “Th e r e i s no su ch th in g as ‘neg li ge nc e in th e ai r.’

. . . [A]n act is ne ve r ne gl ig en t ex cep t in refe ren ce to

, or to ward

, so m e pe rs on or le ga ll y

pr ot ect ed in te res t.” Hil l v. Wils on , 22 4 S .W .2d 79 7, 8 00 (Ark . 19 49 ).

Uni ve rs al al le ge s th at th e Cro p Dus te rs act ed ne gl ig en tl y by fai li ng to fo ll ow

th e he rb ic id e la be l in st ru ct io ns , sp raying th e he rb ic id e du rin g in ap pr op ria te weat he r

co nd it io ns , an d fai li ng to m ai nt ai n req ui red reco rd s, al l in vi ol at io n of fed eral an d

st at e reg ul at io ns

. Se e Y

ou ng v. Blyt he vi ll e Sc h. Dis t.

, --- S.W .3d ---, 20 13 Ark

. App

. 50

, -- (Ark

. Ct

. App

. 20 13 ) (“ In Ark an sa s, th e vi ol at io n of st at ut es m ay be co ns id ered

ev id en ce o f ne gl ig en ce.”)

. To be su re, th e Cro p Dus te rs li ke ly o wed a du ty o f car e

to th os e wit h a “ pa rti cu la r in te res t” in ha vi ng th e he rb ic id e ap pl ie d in acco rd wit h

reg ul at io ns , su ch as th ei r cu st om ers a n d a n y ne arb y la nd us ers who se in te res ts on e

-4

-m ig ht reas on ab ly ex pe ct to be “ in va de d” by aeri al sp ray dr ift

. Se e id

. at --- (q uo ti ng

Res ta te m en t (Seco nd ) of Tort s, § 28 6 (1 96 5) ). Howev er, t he re i s n o all eg at io n th at

Uni ve rs al fal ls wit hi n th e gr ou p of th os e to who m th e Cro p Dus te rs owe d su ch a du ty.

In st ead

, Uni ve rs al m erel y di s t r i b u te d he rb ic id e th at pa ss ed th ro ug h a ch ai n of

co m m erce to th e Cro p Dus te rs , who th en ap pl ie d it

. The re is no au th or it y in Ark an sa s

la w fo r th e pr op os it io n th at th e us er of a pr od uc t owes a du ty of care in it s us e to an

up st ream su pp li er of th e pr od uc t. Cf

. Dul in v. Ci rc le F In du s., In c

. , 55 8 F.2 d 45 6,

46 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 77 ) (“ In th e fie ld of pr od uc ts li ab il it y t h e ch ai n of in de m ni ty

or di na ril y run s d own th e ch ai n o f di st rib ut io n a nd no t i n t he rev ers e d ire ct io n.” ).

Bec au se th e Cro p Dus te rs owe d no du ty to Uni ve rs al

, we affi rm th e di sm is sa l

of Uni ve rs al ’s neg li ge nc e cl ai m

.

B. Th e Ark

an sa s Dec ep ti ve Tr ad

e Pra ct ic es Act

A f t e r m ak in g un la wfu l a li st of sp eci fic tra de pr act ic es , se e Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 4- 88 -1 07 (a)( 1) -(9 ), th e ADTPA ad ds a cat ch -al l pr ov is io n pr oh ib it in g “ [e]ng ag in g

in an y ot he r un co ns ci on ab le

, fal se , or de cep ti ve act or pr a c t i ce in bu si ne ss ,

co m m erce , or tra de ,” id

. § 4-8 8- 10 7( a)(1 0)

. “ An ‘ un co ns ci on ab le ’ act is an act th at

‘affro nt [s ] th e se ns e of jus ti ce, de cen cy , or rea s o n a b l e n e ss .’ ” Bap ti st Hea lt h v.

Mur ph y , 22 6 S.W .3d 80 0, 81 1 n.6 (Ark

. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng Bla ck’s La w Dict io na ry 15 61
(8 th ed

. 20 04 )) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ). “ Any pe rs on who su ffer s act ua l da m ag e or

in jury as a res ul t o f an of

fen se or vi ol at io n as de fin ed in th is ch ap te r ha s a cau se of

act io n to reco ve r act ua l da m ag es , if ap pr op ria te

, an d reas on ab le at to rn ey ’s fees .” Ark

. Co de Ann . § 4 -8 8- 11 3( f).

Uni ve rs al co nt en ds it s al le ga ti on th at th e Cro p Dus te rs a p p l ie d he rb ic id e in

vi ol at io n of st at e an d fed eral la w is su ffi ci en t to st at e a cl ai m fo r an un co ns ci on ab le

tra de pr act ic e be cau se un co ns ci on ab le co nd uc t “ in cl ud es co nd uc t vi ol at iv e of pu bl ic

po li cy or st at ut e.” Se e Bap ti st H e a l t h

, 2 26 S.W .3d at 81 1. Howev er, th ere is no

-5

-in di cat io n in Bap ti st Hea lt h

, or in th e pl ai n te xt of th e ADTPA, th at ever y al le ga ti on

of il le ga l co nd uc t by a bu si ne ss au to m at ic al ly st at es a cl ai m fo r a vi ol at io n of th e

ADTPA. W e can no t co nv ert th e rel at iv el y nu an ced m od ifyin g ph ras e ch os en by th e

st at e le gi sl at ur e fo r t h e c a tc h- al l pr ov is io n— “ un co ns ci on ab le

, fal se , or
de cep ti ve ”—i nt o a ge ne ral refe ren ce to an y un la wfu l co nd uc t. Se e Ros e v. Ark. St at e
Pla nt Bd.

, 21 3 S.W .3d 60 7, 61 4 (Ark

. 20 05 ) (s ta ti ng th at a st at ut e m us t be co ns tru ed

ba se d on “ th e or di na ry m ean in g of th e la ng ua ge us ed

. . . so th at no wor d is le ft vo id

,

su pe rfl uo us or in si gn ifi can t, an d

. . . [to ] gi ve m ean in g an d effe ct to ev ery wor d in th e

st at ut e”). In de ed

, “ whe n ge ne ral wor ds fo ll ow sp eci fic wor ds in a st at ut or y

en um erat io n th e ge ne ral wor ds are co ns tru ed to em br ace on ly ob

jects si m il ar in na tu re

to th os e o bjec ts en um erat ed by th e pr eced in g sp eci fic wor ds .” Han le y v. Ark. S ta te

Cl ai ms Comm’n

, 97 0 S.W .2d 19 8, 20 1 (Ark. 19 98 ). Here, the sp eci fic pr oh ib it io ns

en um erat ed in su bs ect io ns (1 ) th ro ug h (9 ) of se ct io n 4- 88 -1 07 (a) each in vo lv e fal se

rep res en ta ti on , frau d, or th e im pr op er us e of eco no m ic l e v e r a g e in a tra de

tra ns act io n. Thu s, th e cat ch -al l pr ov is io n fo r “ an y ot he r un co ns ci on ab le

, fal se , or

4

Su bs ect io ns (1) th ro ug h (9 ) pr oh ib it : 4

(1 ) Kno win gl y m ak in g a fal se r e p res en ta ti on as to th e ch arac te ris ti cs , in gr ed ie nt s, us es , be ne fit s, al te rat io ns , so ur ce, sp on s o r s h ip

, ap pr ov al

, or
cert ifi cat io n o f go od s o r se rv ic es . . .; (2 ) Dis pa rag in g t h e go od s, se rv ic es , or bu si ne ss of an ot he r by fal se or

m is le ad in g re pr es en ta ti on of f act ; ( 3 ) A d v ert is in g th e go od s or se rv ic es wit h th e in te nt no t to se ll th em as ad ve rti se d; ( 4 ) R e f u sa l

. . . to de li ve r to a cu st om er pu rch as in g an y el ect ro ni c o r

m ech an ic al ap pa rat us th e reco rd of w a r r an ty an d st at em en t of se rv ic e

av ai la bi li ty . . .; (5 ) The em

pl oym en t o f ba it -an d- swi tc h a dv ert is in g . . .; (6 ) Kno win gl y fai li ng to id en ti fy flo od

, wate r, fir e, or acci de nt a l l y da m ag ed

go od s as to su ch da m ag es ; (7 ) Mak in g a fal se rep res en ta ti o n th at co nt rib ut io ns so li ci te d fo r ch ari ta bl e
pu rp os es sh al l b e sp en t i n a sp eci fic m an ne r or for sp eci fie d p ur po se s;

-6

-de cep ti ve act or pr act ic e in bu si ne ss , co m m erce , or tra de ” in su bs ect io n (1 0) m us t be

in te rp ret ed to reac h s im il ar i ns ta nc es of f al se rep res en ta ti on , f

rau d, or th e im

pr op er

u s e of eco no m ic le ve rag e in a tra de tra ns act io n. It wou ld ap pe ar th at t h e t e r m

“ un co ns ci on ab le ” in su bs ect io n (1 0) co rres po nd s to act s in th e na tu re of an im pr op er

us e of eco no m ic le ve rag e in a tra de tra ns act io n. Se e, e.g

. , Bap ti st Hea lt h

, 22 6 S.W .3d

at 81 1 (a f

f i r mi n g as un co ns ci on ab le fo r ADTPA pu rp os es a ho sp it al ’s po li cy of

de nyin g pr ac ti ce rig ht s to ph y si ci an s who he ld own ers hi p in te res ts in an ot he r lo cal

ho sp it al

, whe re th e de f e n d a n t ho sp it al ha d th e “ up pe r ha nd be cau se of

ex cl u si ve -p ro vi de r co nt ract s” an d th e “ po wer to di sr up t th e rel at io ns hi ps be twee n

pa ti en ts

, who are at [th e h o s p it al ’s] m ercy, wit h th ei r ph y si ci an s” ); St at e ex re l.
Brya nt v. R & A In v. Co

. , 98 5 S.W .2d 29 9, 30 0- 03 (Ark

. 19 99 ) (aff irming th at a carti tl e-p awn bu si ne ss ’s pr act ic e o f ch arg in g hi gh -ri sk bo rro wers a th ree- hu nd red

pe r c e n t a n n ua l pe rcen ta ge rat e an d req ui rin g th em to ex ecu te a po wer of at to rn ey

au th or iz in g i t t o s el l t he pa wne d car up on de fau lt was un co ns ci on ab le fo r pu rp os es

of th e ADTPA).

Uni ve rs al ’s co m

pl a i n t a l le ge s th at th e Cro p Dus te rs ap pl ie d th e he rb ic id e in

co nt rav en ti on of th e la be l in st ru ct io ns , du rin g in ap pr op ria te weat he r co nd it io ns , an d

wit ho ut m ai nt ai ni ng r e q u ire d reco rd s; it do es no t al le ge th at th es e act io ns in cl ud ed

(8 ) Kno win gl y ta ki ng ad va nt ag e of a co ns um er who is reas on ab ly un ab le to

pr ot ect hi s or he r in te res t be cau se of [fac to rs su ch as di sa bi li ty or ig no ran ce]; (9 ) The of

feri ng fo r sa le

, as s e m

bl y , or dr aft in g of an y tru st do cu m en t, in cl ud in g a li vi ng tru st , by a n on la wy er . . . .

Ark

. Co de An n

. § 4- 88 -1 07 (a). In ad di ti on , in 20 03

, su bs ect io n (1 1) was ad de d to

pr oh ib it th e di sp la y of “ a fic ti ti ou s or m is le ad in g na m e or te le ph on e nu m be r on an Ark an sa s res id en t’s te le ph on e cal le r id en ti fic at io n se rv ic e.” Se e id

. ; se e al s o 20 03
Ark . Acts 14 65 (H.B. 25 80 ).

-7

-co nd uc t in th e na tu re of an im pr op er us e of eco no m ic le ve rag e in a tra de tra ns act io n. 5

As a res ul t, th e al le ge d co nd uc t si m p l y fai ls to fit wit hi n th e sc op e of th e

un co ns ci on ab le tra de pr act ic es pr oh ib it ed by th e ADTPA. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is m is sa l o f Uni ve rs al ’s ADTPA clai m

.

C. Th ir d- Par ty Li ti

ga ti on Excep ti on to th e Ameri ca n Rul e an d Rest at emen t (S eco nd ) of To rt s S ect io n 9 14 (2

)

Ark an sa s fo ll ows th e Am eri can ru le “ ag ai ns t award in g [at to rn ey ’s] fees in th e
ab se nc e of a st at ut e or ru le .” Jea n- Pier re v. Pla nt at io n Homes Cr it te nd en , 89 S.W .3d

33 7, 34 2 (Ark

. 20 0 2 )

. So m e juri sd ic ti on s reco gn iz e “ th e th ird -p art y li ti ga ti on

ex cep ti on to th e Am eri can Ru le

, . . . [u nd er whi ch ] a co ur t m ay ‘award at to rn ey fees

as da m ag es if th e de fen da nt ’s to rti ou s ac t th ru st s or pr ojec ts th e pl ai nt iff in to

li ti ga ti on wit h a th ird pa rty.’ ” OnePo in t S ol ut io ns , LLC v. Bor ch er t , 4 86 F.3 d 3 42

, 35 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ti ng Ka ll ok v. Med tr on ic

, In c. , 57 3 N.W .2d 35 6, 36 3 (Mi nn

. 19 98 )). The Res ta te men t (Sec on d) of Tort s reco gn iz es a to rt cau se of act io n ba se d

on th is ex cep ti on , st at in g:

O n e w h o th ro ug h th e to rt of an ot he r ha s be en req ui red to act in t h e
pr ot ect io n o f hi s i nt eres ts by brin gi ng or de fen di ng an act io n ag ai ns t a th ird pe rs on is en ti tl ed to reco ve r reas on ab le co m pe ns at io n fo r lo ss of
ti m e, at to rn ey fees an d ot he r ex pe nd it ur es th ereb y su ffer ed or in cu rred
in th e ear li er ac ti on

.

Id

. § 9 14 (2 ).

Alt ho ug h Uni ve rs al a s s ert s th at th e al le ge d co nd uc t was un co ns ci on ab le

, 5

rat he r th an frau du le nt or de cep ti ve , we al so no te th at an y al le ga ti on s in th e na tu re of
frau d or m is rep res en ta ti on wou ld ha ve to ha ve be en pl ed wit h pa rti cu la rit y

. Se e Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 9 (b ).

-8

-Uni ve rs al arg ue s th at Ark an sa s wou ld joi n ot he r st at es th at ha ve , to s om e

ex te nt , a do pt ed so m e fo rm of th e th ird -p art y li ti ga ti o n ex cep ti on or se ct io n 91 4( 2)

. Howev er, Ark an sa s cas e la w do es no t su pp or t th is arg um en t. The Ark an sa s Su pr em e

Co ur t ha s m en ti on ed se ct io n 91 4( 2) in on ly two cas es

. Fi rs t

, in Li le s v. Li le s , 71 1

S

. W. 2d 44 7 (Ark

. 19 86 ), a wom an su ed he r ex -h us ba nd an d th ei r at to rn ey f o r

frau du le nt co nd uc t wit h res pe ct to a pr op ert y se tt le m en t in co nt em pl at io n of di vo rce,

an d as pa rt of he r reco ve ry sh e ob ta in ed at to rn ey ’s fees joi nt ly an d se ve ral ly ch arg ed

to th e ex -h us ba nd an d at to rn ey

. On ap pe al to th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t, th e

at to rn ey arg ue d th at th e fee award co ul d no t st an d be cau se “ ab se nt sta tut ory au th or it y ,

a to rt cl ai m an t can no t reco ve r he r at to rn ey ’s fee fro m a to rtf eas or .” Id

. at 45 4. In

res po ns e, th e co ur t qu ot ed se ct io n 91 4( 2) as rel ev an t to th e ex te nt t h at th e cl ai m

ag ai ns t th e at to rn ey was no t jus t fo r fees in cu rred in pr os ecu ti ng a to rt cl ai m ag ai ns t

th e at to rn ey hi m se lf, bu t fo r fees in cu rred in pr os ecu ti ng a to rt cl ai m ag ai ns t th e ex

hu sb an d as well

. Id

. at 45 6- 57

. Howev er, in st ead of rel y in g on th e pr in ci pl e

em bo di ed in se ct io n 91 4( 2) , t he co ur t fo un d ot he r “ am pl e reas on s fo r award in g th e

am ou nt of th e fee ag ai ns t bo th ” th e ex -h us ba nd an d th e at to rn ey joi nt ly an d se ve ral ly,

fir st as pr op er in an act io n ag ai ns t a tru st ee fo r br each of tru st

, an d se co nd as wit hi n

th e ch an cery cou rt’s d is cret io n i n a do m es ti c rel at io ns cas e. Id

. at 4 57

.

Si xt een y ears la t e r, in Jea n- Pier re , a res id en ti al tre at m en t faci li ty fo r th e

m en ta ll y il l was su ed in a ne gl ig en ce act io n. 89 S.W .3d at 33 8- 39

. The faci li ty fil ed

a su cces sf

ul th ird -p art y cl ai m a g a i ns t a ps y ch ia tri st who tre at ed pa ti en ts th ere fo r

in de m ni ty, co nt rib ut io n, an d at to rn ey ’s fees in cu rred in th e su it

. Id

. at 33 9. On

ap pe al to th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t, th e ps y ch ia tri st ch al le ng ed th e award ag ai ns t

hi m of th e faci li ty’ s at to rn ey ’s fees in cu rred in de fen di ng t h e i n it ia l su it

, an d th e
faci li ty res po nd ed th at fees in cu rred in de fen di ng a su it br ou gh t by a th ird pa rty ba se d

on th e ps y ch ia tri st ’s ne gl ie ge nc e were ap pr op ria te un de r se ct io n 91 4( 2) as ap pl ie d in

Li le s

. Id

. at 34 2. The co ur t ex pr es sl y de cl in ed th e in vi ta ti on to ad op t se ct io n 91 4( 2)

an d i ns te ad va cat ed th e fee award , st at in g:

-9

-[The faci li ty] al lu de [s ] to th e cas e of [ Li le s ], whe rei n th is co ur t ci te d th e

Res ta te m en t (Sec on d) of Tort s, § 91 4( 2)

, fo r th e pr in ci pl e th at on e who

, th ro ug h th e to rt of an ot he r, ha s be en req ui red to de fen d hi s own in te res ts

ag ai ns t a th ird pe rs on “ is en ti tl ed to reco ve r reas on ab le co mp e n s a t io n fo r th e lo ss of ti m e, at to rn ey fees an d ot he r e x pe nd it ur es th ereb y

su ffer ed or in cu rred in th e earl i er act io n.” Li le s , ho wev er, is th e on ly
Ark an sa s cas e th at ci te s th is pr ov is io n, bu t th e Li le s co ur t al so se t ou t

nu m ero us ot he r r e a s o ns to jus ti fy th e at to rn ey ’s fees award ed in th at

cas e. W e d o n ot fin d t he Li le s cas e to be co nt ro ll in g.

Bec au se th e tri al co ur t’s or de r he re of fere d no st at ut or y au th or it y fo r award in g at to rn ey s’ fees to [th e faci l i t y]

, an d be cau se th at award was

co nt rary to th e ge ne ral ru le ag ai ns t award in g su ch fees in th e ab se nc e of

a st at ut e o r ru le , we rev ers e th at po rti on of t he tri al co ur t’s o rd er.

Id

. Thu s, th e m os t rece nt pr on ou nc em en t fro m th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t reject s

th e co nc ep t of ho ld in g on e pa rty li ab le fo r a tt or ne y ’s fees in cu rred in li ti ga ti on

ag ai ns t an ot he r pa rty.

W e no te fu rth er th at th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t fav or ab ly ci te d a th ird -p art y

ex cep ti on to th e Am eri can Ru le on ly in a cas e whe re th e th ird pa rty ha d br each ed an

ex is ti ng du ty to th e pl ai nt iff

. Se e Li le s , 71 1 S.W .2d at 45 6- 57 (ci ti ng se ct io n 91 4( 2)

as a p o t e n t i a l ba si s fo r a reco ve ry of at to rn ey ’s fees fro m th e pl ai nt iff ’s fo rm er

at to rn ey , who owe d a fid uc ia ry du ty t o he r). Su ch a br each by th e th ird pa rty of a

co nt ract ua l du ty or du ty of care owe d to th e pl ai nt iff is typic al ly req ui red by
juri sd ic ti on s th at reco gn iz e a th ird -p art y ex cep ti on to th e Am eri can Ru le

. Se e, e.g

. , Bar ne s v. Okla

. Far m Bur ea u Mut

. In s. Co

. , 11 P.3 d 16 2, 18 1 (Ok la

. 20 00 ) (“ [W] he re

th e pu rch as ers of a co m

pl et ed ho us e an d lo t were req ui red to de fen d a li en fo recl os ur e

su it bro ug ht by a sub co nt ract or be cau se th e v en do r of

th e h ou se an d l ot wron gf ul ly

refu se d to pa y th e su bc on tra ct or ’s bi ll

. . . —t he ve nd or ’s refu sa l to pa y th e

su bc on tra ct or ’s bi ll be in g in vi ol at io n of hi s co nt ract wit h th e pu rch as ers

. . . [—t he n]

th e pu rch as ers were en ti tl ed to reco ve r as an it em of da m ag e i n a s ub se qu en t su it

ag ai ns t th e ve nd or , th e at to rn ey fees th ey were co m pe ll ed to ex pe nd in de fen di ng th e

-1 0-su it by th e su bc on tra ct or .”); St

. Lo ui s Cn ty

. v. Ta yl or -Mo rl ey, In c. , 92 3 S.W .2d 50 7,

51 2 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 1 9 9 6 ) ( a l lo win g th e pl ai nt iff to reco ve r fro m a th ird pa rty

at to rn ey ’s fees in cu rred in se pa rat e li ti ga ti on whe re, “ [a]s a di rect an d p r ox im at e

res ul t of [th e th ird pa rty’ s] br each of it s du ty to [th e pl ai nt iff ], [th e pl ai nt iff

] in cu rred

at to rn ey ’s fees in de fen di ng th e act io n br ou gh t ag ai ns t it ”). As di sc us se d ab ov e in th e

co nt e x t o f U n i ve rs al ’s ne gl ig en ce cl ai m , Uni ve rs al fai ls to al le ge th at th e Cro p

Dus te rs owe d a du ty to Uni ve rs al wit h res pe ct to ap pl ic at io n of th e he rb ic id e. Thu s,

ev en were we to pr ed ic t th at th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t wou ld reco gn iz e a th ird

pa rty ex cep ti on to th e Am eri can Ru le

, we wou ld do ub t it s ap pl ic at io n in th e
ci rcu m st an ces pre se nt ed he re.

Bec au se th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t m os t rece nt ly ha s reject ed an y cau se of

act io n ag ai ns t a th ird pa rty fo r at to rn ey ’s fees in cu rre d i n earl ie r li ti ga ti on ag ai ns t

an ot h e r p a r ty, an d in th is cas e th ere is no du ty ru nn in g fro m th e th ird pa rty to th e pl ai nt iff th at wou ld su pp or t su ch a cau se of act io n in an y ev en t, we a f f i r m th e
di sm is sa l o f U n i v ers al ’s cl ai m s ba se d on th e th ird -p art y -li ti ga ti on ex cep ti on to th e

Am eri can Ru le an d R es ta te m en t (S eco nd ) of Tort s s ect io n 9 14 (2 ).

II I. Con cl us io n

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm th e di sm is sa l of Uni ve rs al ’s co m pl ai nt fo r

fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m

.

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

-1 1-