Opinion ID: 6109941
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Board Has Standing to Sue

Text: Next, the State argues the circuit court was incorrect when it determined the Board lacked standing to sue Pilot for its failure to cooperate in the State's attempted lawsuit against Environ. The State claims entering into subrogation contracts with Fund participants is an inherent task[ ] in the general administration of the Fund. Pilot's arguments, meanwhile, are twofold. It first argues the Board lacks standing because no statute gives the Board the authority to sue other entities, such as the one at the heart of this case. Further, it suggests the Board has no authority to enter into the underlying subrogation contracts with Fund participants. For ease and clarity, this Court addresses Pilot's second argument first. Pilot contends the Board lacks authority to enter into subrogation contracts because no statute provides such a right, expressly or impliedly. Further, because the Board never had authority to enter into these subrogation contracts in the first place, Pilot claims, the Board does not have standing to sue for an injury arising out of a contract that is ultimately unenforceable. As a creature of statute, the Board's powers are limited to those conferred by ... statutes, either expressly, or by clear implication as necessary to carry out the powers specifically granted. State ex rel. MoGas Pipeline, LLC v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm'n , 366 S.W.3d 493 , 496 (Mo. banc 2012) (alteration in original). The enabling statutes do provide the Board with certain express contracting powers: (1) to enter into contracts with other state agencies for staffing purposes, see section 319.129.9; (2) to hire individuals to carry out the management and legal defense of the Fund, see section 319.129.10; (3) to commission audits of the Fund, see section 319.129.17; (4) to hire third parties to carry out training programs for Fund participants, see section 319.130.3; and (5) to purchase reinsurance for the Fund, see section 319.129.15. Pilot argues the Board's contracting powers are limited to this express list-arguing, in effect, in favor of applying the canon expressio unius est exclusio alterius : the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another. Simpson v. Simpson , 352 S.W.3d 362 , 364 n.1 (Mo. banc 2011). But that maxim is to be used with great caution. Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue , 179 S.W.3d 266 , 270 (Mo. banc 2005) (internal quotation omitted). The maxim should be invoked only when it would be natural to assume by a strong contrast that which is omitted must have been intended for the opposite treatment. Id. In other words, it must be clear from the statute that the legislature intended for the Board to not possess the power of entering into subrogation contracts with Fund participants. If the Board's powers were truly limited to those five express functions, its ability to carry out the general administration of the [F]und would be severely limited. It would be unable to contract with experts, such as environmental engineers, to determine the extent of the leak[s] and prepare remedial actions, as in City of Harrisonville , 495 S.W.3d at 743 . It would be  unable to contract with other third parties, if necessary, to facilitate and manage spill cleanups. And finally, it would be unable to contract for the terms and conditions of coverage the Fund provides to Fund participants. Indeed, it would be practically impossible for the Board to successfully oversee the administration of the Fund if its contracting powers were limited to those explicitly enumerated in the statute. Rather, it is logically vested with implicit contracting powers beyond those expressly listed in chapter 319. It is the Board's responsibility, as custodian of the Fund, to oversee its facilitation. [T]he Fund is merely an account and only its Board of Trustees is responsible for the administration and operation of the Fund. Id. at 752 (emphasis added). Entering into subrogation contracts with Fund participants governing the terms and conditions of Fund coverage is a necessary component of ensuring the efficient and proper administration of the Fund as well as in making all decisions relating to payments from the [F]und. Section 319.129.4. And if the Board can enter into these contracts to operate the Fund, it necessarily must be able to sue to recover damages for a breach of those contracts. See ConocoPhillips , 493 S.W.3d at 404 (The Board certainly has the right to sue to recover moneys owed to the Fund, see § 319.129.4....). 8 Accordingly, the Board has standing to sue for breaches of the contracts it enters into to carry out the general administration of the Fund.