Missouri Supreme Court Expands Insurers' Right to Intervene in Tort Actions
ABSTRACT: Shortly before the end of 2024, the Missouri Supreme Court issued a significant ruling, changing the landscape surrounding Missouri insurers’ rights and abilities to intervene in an underlying action under Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 52.12(a)(2).
Background on McCrackin v. Mullen
In Jeromy McCrackin v. Tynan Mullen, et al., the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a circuit court wrongfully overruled Safeco Insurance Company of America’s (“Safeco”) motion to intervene in a wrongful death action for the limited purpose of seeking to stay the wrongful death action until a separate declaratory judgment action filed in federal court could be resolved. McCrackin v. Mullen, et al., No. SC100578, 701 S.W.3d 868 (Mo. banc 2024).
In the circuit court matter, Jeromy McCrackin (“McCrackin”) filed a wrongful death action against Tynan Mullen (“Mullen”) for the death of McCrackin’s son, who was shot and killed by Mullen and several others outside a pool hall in 2019. Although Mullen never requested that Safeco defend him in the wrongful death action, McCrackin sent several letters to Safeco, identifying Mullen as an insured under a homeowners policy issued to Mullen’s grandmother and requesting that Safeco settle the wrongful death claim against Mullen in exchange for payment of the liability limits.
Safeco declined McCrackin’s demands pursuant to an intentional act exclusion in the homeowners policy and filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court, seeking a declaration that Safeco’s policy did not cover McCrackin’s claims against Mullen. After Mullen and McCrackin moved to stay the declaratory judgment action until Mullen’s criminal case reached its conclusion, Safeco moved to intervene in the wrongful death action as a matter of right “for the limited purpose of staying the proceedings in [the] action until final resolution of its declaratory judgment action.”
The circuit court denied Safeco’s Motion to Intervene, and the wrongful death action proceeded to a bench trial resulting in a $16.5 million judgment against Mullen. Safeco appealed the circuit court’s denial of its Motion to Intervene.
Missouri Supreme Court’s Ruling
Although Missouri’s appellate courts have previously confirmed an insurer’s right to intervene for the sole purpose of seeking a stay while coverage is litigated in a separate declaratory judgment action, McCrackin is the first time the Missouri Supreme Court weighed in directly on this issue. In McCrackin, the Supreme Court held that Rule 52.12(a) “should be construed liberally to permit broad intervention” as “insurers situated like Safeco have an interest in protecting their right to defend the underlying tort action pursuant to Rule 52.12(a)(2), which creates the right to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking a stay in the tort action while coverage questions are litigated in a separate declaratory judgment action.” Id. at 876. Furthermore, McCrackin held that to the extent other cases suggest an insurer does not have a right to intervene for the sole purpose of seeking a stay so that coverage can be litigated in a separate declaratory judgment action, “such cases should no longer be followed.” Id. at 876, fn. 10.
Implications for Insurers
Although the Court recognized that it is unsuitable for an insurer to “have its cake and eat it too by both refusing coverage and at the same time continuing to control the terms of settlement in defense of an action it had refused to defend,” this was not what Safeco sought. Id. at 876. Rather, the Supreme Court concluded that Safeco’s conduct was appropriate as “disposition of the tort action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede Safeco's ability to protect its interest because, if the tort action concludes prior to the declaratory judgment action, there is no longer a tort action to defend, even if the federal court determines Safeco had a duty to defend.” Id.
When faced with a coverage question, insurers should protect their interests and ensure they have an opportunity to control and manage the underlying litigation. Missouri insurers can and should lean on the intervention and stay procedure addressed in McCrackin. Given the disposition of the Missouri Supreme Court, it is clear that “[i]nsurers with good faith coverage questions should file a declaratory judgment action simultaneous with the underlying tort action and seek a stay of the tort action until the declaratory judgment action is resolved.” Id.related services
About Insurance Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Insurance Blog examines topics and developments of interest to insurance carriers, with a particular focus on the Midwest and Pacific Northwest, including Missouri, Kansas, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Learn more about the editor, Philip Sumner, and our Insurance practice.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Insurance Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Insurance Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Insurance Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.