Opinion ID: 625083
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the District Court Abused Its Discretion by Refusing to Give a Contra Proferentem Instruction

Text: We review for abuse of discretion the district court's refusal to submit a requested instruction. Powell v. TPI Petroleum, Inc., 510 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir.2007). A contra proferentem instruction is appropriate where one party drafts and controls the contractual terms of a contract; in such situation, a contra proferentem instruction tells the jury to construe any ambiguity in such contract against the drafter. Porous Media Corp. v. Midland Brake, Inc., 220 F.3d 954, 960 n. 8 (8th Cir.2000). The contra proferentem rule is applied more rigorously in insurance contracts than in other contracts in Missouri. Burns v. Smith, 303 S.W.3d 505, 509 (Mo.2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, Ladco requested a contra proferentem instruction directing the jury to adopt Ladco's contention of the contract in rendering its verdict, because Ladco claimed Shaw drafted the proposal. The court denied the instruction, stating: I want both sides here to have ample opportunity to argue your theory of the case to the jury. I'm not going to restrict any argument with rulings of law that essentially result in a directed verdict for one side or the other. Trial Tr. vol. 3, at 444. Ladco argues the refusal of the instruction resulted in the jury's misunderstanding of its duty to interpret the fee proposal against SHA. Had the jury been so instructed, Ladco claims the verdict likely would have been different. We agree with the district court because there was not sufficient evidence as to who drafted the Statement of Intent, contrary to Ladco's assertion. Shaw testified, Statement of intent is not a document that we use once every ten years I think. I'm not sure whether Mr. Belew provided that or we provided it. I simply don't remember. Trial Tr. vol. 2, at 317. When pressed on some modifications made to the Statement of Intent, Shaw stated, Again, I either drafted it or Mike drafted it. I certainly must have drafted that line or added that line. Id. at 319. While Ladco stresses that Shaw admitted he must have drafted at least some of the statement of intent, Appellant's Reply Br. at 9, this, standing alone, would be insufficient to give the instruction, because it necessarily means Belew or Ladco drafted some of the language. It would contravene the purpose of the instruction if both parties drafted the provision in part. Accordingly, the court acted within its province in denying the request because there was not sufficient evidence in the record to form a basis for the instruction. Cf. Swift & Co. v. Elias Farms, Inc., 539 F.3d 849, 854 (8th Cir.2008) (A jury should be instructed to consider the rule that ambiguous agreements are construed against the drafter only if it is unable to determine the intent of the parties based on all of the evidence.); McClure v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 223 F.3d 845, 858 (8th Cir.2000) (concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a contra proferentem instruction based, in part, on the lack of evidence on argument on the issue). Moreover, we note the parties appeared to be at equal bargaining power. See Porous Media Corp., 220 F.3d at 960 (concluding a party was not entitled to a contra proferentem instruction because, in part, the parties had equal bargaining power). Because the court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm its denial of the requested instruction.