Opinion ID: 2373086
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Against this general background, a second question presents itself: must the plaintiff expressly plead either or both of these exceptions in order to recover punitive damages in a breach of contract action? On this question, we find a conflict between the districts of the Court of Appeals. In Stamps v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 667 S.W.2d 12, 14 (Mo.App. 1984), the Eastern District wrote: [I]t would seem the independent tort arising from the breach should be alleged, proved, and the ultimate facts thereof submitted to the jury as a predicate for the award of punitive damages.

Text: Forinash , a case from the Southern District, relied on Garrett v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 520 S.W.2d 102 (Mo.App.1974), a case applying Kansas law, for the proposition that the plaintiff need not plead an independent tort in order to recover. Instead, the plaintiff need only show that `the manner in which the breach occurred constitutes a willful tort for which an action for exemplary damages will lie....` Forinash, 697 S.W.2d at 307 (quoting Garrett, 520 S.W.2d at 121). The conflict thus drawn, we believe the better practice is as alluded to in Williams, 294 S.W.2d at 40, and clearly stated in Stamps, 667 S.W.2d at 14. There must be proper allegations ( Williams ); the independent tort ... should be alleged. ( Stamps ). See also L.L. Cole & Son, Inc. v. Hickman, 282 Ark. 6, 665 S.W.2d 278, 281 (1984). ([T]he plaintiff must specifically plead and prove this cause of action in tort in order to be awarded punitive damages.) The same is true if plaintiff seeks to recover under a breach of fiduciary duty theory; specific pleading is necessary.