Court Opinion

ID: 9644067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:47:45.608897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:08.352020
License: Public Domain

HOLSTEIN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. As the majority opinion acknowledges, the term “agent” has more than one definition. Thus, when undefined in a statute, the word lends itself to judicial construction. In this particular statute, the word “agent” is modified by the phrase “for the transaction of [the corporation’s] usual and customary business.” This phrase has the effect of compounding the ambiguity.
Whenever ambiguity exists in a statute, it is the responsibility of the courts to construe the statute consistently with what the legislature intended. MaGee v. Blue Ridge Prof. Bldg., 821 S.W.2d 889, 843 (Mo. banc 1991); § 1.010, RSMo 1986. When attempting to discern legislative intent it is essential to consider the purpose of the statute. State ex rel. Rhodes v. Crouch, 621 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Mo. banc 1981). The words used must be considered in the context in which they appear. In this ease, the context is a corporate venue statute. The corporate venue statute was not designed to maximize the possibility of forum shopping. The purpose is to provide the parties a reasonably convenient location in which to try the lawsuit. State ex rel. Pagliara v. Stussie, 549 S.W.2d 900, 903 (Mo.App.1977). The Court should not adopt a construction of the venue statute that defeats the legislative purpose.
Applying those rules to this case, the question becomes whether this Court is persuaded that the legislature intended to include a travel agent appointed by an airline to promote and sell passenger tickets as the airline’s “agent for the transaction of [the airline’s] usual and customary business.” In the context of the corporate venue statute, I am convinced such appointment is not the sort of agency intended by the legislature to support venue.
To be an agent for the transaction of the “usual and customary business” of a corporation connotes some degree of discretion. In this case, the so-called “agent” had absolutely no discretion. The terms of the sale of the tickets are dictated entirely by Southwest Airlines. This includes the fares charged for various flights, the date and time that flights would depart and arrive, the number of seats and classes of seating available, and whether a particular ticket is refundable. In effect, a travel agency is merely a broker who is authorized by the airline to receive offers to purchase tickets. Acceptance of the offers *63are conditioned on whether there is a flight available at the time and to the place required by the passenger, the availability of space on the particular flight sought to be booked and the payment of the required fare. The availability of space on a scheduled flight as well as the payment of the fare is determined electronically before the ticket is issued by the travel agent. Certainly, a travel agent has no actual, implied or apparent authority to set fares, issue tickets when seats are not available or bind the airline to fly on a date not scheduled or to a destination not served by the airline. The travel agent’s duties are purely ministerial and mechanical in nature. The absence of any discretion in the performance of its duties and that the duties are a very narrow part of the overall business of transportation of passengers for hire on a regularly scheduled airline leads me to believe that the legislature did not intend mere travel agents to be considered within the ambit of an “agent for the transaction of [an airline’s] usual and customary business.”
Persuasive in this regard are cases construing the Texas corporate venue statute. That statute authorizes venue in any Texas county where a corporation has “an agency or representative.” Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.036 (1993). The Texas courts have concluded that under their corporate venue statute, the word “agency” connotes one having discretionary power relating to corporate affairs of the principal. Rouse v. Shell Oil Co., 577 S.W.2d 787, 789 (Tex.Civ.App.1979). See also Milligan v. Southern Express, 151 Tex. 315, 250 S.W.2d 194, 198 (1952) (in the context of the venue statute, “agency or representative” is held to mean the defendant’s business is, in more less regular and permanent form, actually conducted in the county of suit or one in which a party possessing broad powers from the corporate defendant resides in the county). The Texas venue statute has been construed more narrowly than the Missouri statute is construed today, even without the benefit of the modifying language “customary and usual business.”
In a slightly different context, this Court in Litzinger v. Pulitzer Publishing Co., 356 S.W.2d 81 (Mo.1962), was called on to decide if a St. Louis City newspaper which had an office to which a reporter was regularly assigned in St. Louis County maintained a “business office of the defendant” newspaper so as to justify service of process in the county. The Court held, inter alia, that serving suit papers on the reporter assigned to the office was insufficient because maintenance of an office for gathering and transmitting news does not constitute “doing business” of the newspaper. 356 S.W.2d at 87. While conceding that the Litzinger decision was made in the context of a rule relating to service of process, the rationale seems equally applicable here in determining whether the travel agent was an agent of defendant in its “usual and customary business.”
The result I would reach is also supported, albeit indirectly, by the holding in a recent court of appeals case, State ex rel. Cameron Mutual Ins. Co. v. Koehr, 850 S.W.2d 374 (Mo.App.1993). There the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, refused to extend the definition of “agent” for venue purposes to include an independent insurance adjuster who, on behalf of the defendant insurance company, performed “occasional nonbinding investigation, adjustment and appraisal services” in a county where the defendant had no other contacts. 850 S.W.2d at 326. It is obvious to anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the insurance adjusting practice that insurance adjusting normally includes obtaining releases from claimants in return for delivering settlement payments from insurers. It is strained, at least, to suggest that this activity does not bind the insurer and modify the legal relations between the insurer and third parties.
I also believe this ease is distinguishable from State ex rel. Cameron Mutual Ins. Co. v. Reeves, 727 S.W.2d 916 (Mo.App.1987). Insurance agents perform essentially all the duties necessary to enter into and complete the sale of an insurance contract. In addition, insurance agents, ordinarily, have the authority to bind the insurer, at least temporarily. When a claim arises, *64the insured normally contacts the agent first. The agent then makes the first report of claim on behalf of the insurer. On small claims, it is not at all unusual for the insurance agent to actually pay the claim for the insurance company out of funds made available for that purpose by the insurer. In sum, the insurance agent performs a role in virtually all the activities related to the insurance business. By contrast, the services rendered by a travel agent as part of the airline business are minimal. Most of the services are performed by pilots, flight attendants, baggage handlers, mechanics and the like. Discretion as to the amount of fares, where to fly, and when to fly are reserved to corporate management.
The majority’s view that the Restatement of Agency conclusively establishes the meaning of the word “agent” is not supported by the restatement. The Restatement of Agency begins with this caveat:
The brevity of a definition necessarily makes it an incomplete and inaccurate statement. Like other groups of words, it must be used with discretion. Much confusion has resulted from inaccurate definitions and from the misuse of definitions.
Restatement (Second) of Agency, Introductory Note, Topic I, Definitions (1958). In the comment following the first section, a more direct warning is given against the strict application of the restatement’s definitions when construing statutes:
Whether the word “agent” as used in a statute corresponds to the meaning here given depends, with other factors, upon the purpose of the statute.
Restatement (Second) of Agency, § I, Comment on subsection (3) (1958). If the authors of the restatement did not intend that their definition of “agent” serve as a basis for defeating a statutory purpose, this Court should not do so.
I believe this Court should not take the technical approach of adopting a strict construction of a venue statute based on the definitions of words found in the Restatement of Agency. We are here construing ambiguous statutory language and should consider the words used in light of the overall context, the statute’s purpose, commercial reasonableness and the realities of life. We should not construe the statute in such a way as to defeat the statutory purpose of convenience to the parties. Most importantly, we should not assume the legislature intended an absurd or unreasonable construction of the statute. David Ranken Tech. Inst. v. Boykins, 816 S.W.2d 189, 192 (Mo. banc 1991). Hopefully, the legislature will at the first opportunity make its intent more clear.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.