Court Opinion

ID: 9755582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:43:28.96602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:09.291777
License: Public Domain

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., Chief Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in all parts of the majority opinion except the majority’s limitation on what constitutes “reasonable” attorney’s fees. The majority holds that fees incurred from litigating the coverage question are not fees that are “directly involved in the garnishment aspects of the case,” and, thus, are not “costs attending such garnishment” under Rule 90.12(b). I have found no cases interpreting the attorney’s fees provision of Rule 90.12(b), which refers simply to “attorney’s fees” rather than “reasonable attorney’s fees” as stated in section 525.240, RSMo 2000. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the very essence of the garnishment action in this case and the only issue required to be litigated was the question of insurance coverage. Had coverage been present, then the garnishment could have proceeded, but because coverage was not present, the garnishment was quashed. How the majority separates the coverage question from the “garnishment aspects of the case” is beyond my comprehension.
*406I would remand for determination of attorney’s fees that would include the cost of litigating the coverage question.