Case Summary for March 7, 2012

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for March 7, 2012

THE FOLLOWING DOCKET SUMMARIES ARE PREPARED BY THE COURT'S STAFF FOR THE INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE OF THE READER. THE SUMMARIES MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AND DO NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE MERITS OF A CASE. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION. SUMMARIES ARE UNOFFICIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE QUOTED OR CITED.

Attached to the following docketed cases are electronic copies of briefs filed by the parties. These electronic briefs have been converted to PDF to accommodate various word processors. If you do not already have Acrobat reader, which is necessary to open the PDFs, you may obtain it free at the Adobe website. (A set of free tools that allow visually disabled users to read documents in Adobe PDF format is available from access.adobe.com.) These briefs do not reflect any opinion of the Court about the appropriateness of the format of the briefs or the merits of the case, nor are they official court records. Copies of all briefs filed with the Court are available at the Supreme Court Building in the court en banc division.

The attachments below may not reflect all briefs filed with the Court, the complete filing or the format of the original filing. Appendices and other attachments generally will not be posted here. To see what documents have been filed in a particular case, visit Case.net.

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

9:30 a.m. Wednesday, March 7, 2012

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC92202
Ruth Mendenhall v. Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford and Jay Walker
St. Louis County
Insurance coverage for work-related death

Listen to the oral argument:

Ruth Mendendall was represented during arguments by Amy Fehr of Capes, Sokol, Goodman & Sarachan PC in St. Louis, and Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford was represented by John Hayob of Brown & Ruprecht PC in Kansas City. Judge David Mobley, an associate circuit judge with the 10th judicial circuit (Ralls County), sat in this case by special designation in place of Judge George W. Draper III.

Ruth Mendenhall’s husband interviewed with the Family Center of Farmington, of which Jay Walker is the sole shareholder. The Family Center did not hire him but referred him to Walker, who hired him to work an as-needed basis on Walker’s cattle farm. The husband died after a dump trailer turned over and crushed him while he was doing work at Walker’s farm. Mendenhall sought recovery under the worker’s compensation act. After her worker’s compensation claim was denied because farm labor is not included under the act, Mendenhall brought an action against the Family Center and Walker in St. Francois County. After she received a judgment in the St. Francois County case, she brought this action against the Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford in St. Louis County for satisfaction of the judgment. Walker tendered the claim to the insurance company and filed a motion for summary judgment (judgment on the briefs). The trial court ruled in Hartford’s favor, finding that the insurance policy’s indemnity and employer liability provisions excluded Hartford from liability under the policy. Mendenhall appeals.

Mendenhall argues the trial court erred by ruling in Hartford’s favor and overruling her claim. She contends that the insurance policy’s indemnity and employer liability provisions do not cancel out coverage. Mendenhall asserts her husband was a “temporary worker,” not an “employee,” because he was hired to work for a period of time. She argues that the definition of “employee” as used in the insurance policy does not include a temporary worker and that her claim should not be excluded by the policy provision.

The insurance company and Walker argue the trial court correctly ruling in their favor. They contend Mendenhall’s husband was Walker’s employee and, therefore, was excluded from coverage under the provisions of the insurance policy. The company and Walker assert the indemnification and employer liability exclusion provisions exclude Mendenhall from recovery.

SC92047
In re: Michael M. Sebold
St. Louis County
Attorney discipline

Listen to the oral argument:

Chief Disciplinary Counsel was represented during arguments by Sam Phillips, a staff attorney with the office in Jefferson City, and Michael M. Sebold represented himself. Judge Rex Burlison, a circuit judge with the 22nd judicial circuit (St. Louis city), sat in this case by special designation in place of Judge William Ray Price Jr..

St. Louis attorney Michael Sebold was found by police in June 2010 operating a vehicle without a functioning, certified ignition interlock device as required by the terms of his probation for a prior offense. Police determined Sebold’s blood alcohol content was over the legal limit at the time they found him. Sebold said he began drinking significantly following a divorce and was charged twice for driving while intoxicated in 2007 and 2008. The state charged Sebold with a class D felony because of his two prior offenses. The state also charged him with a class A misdemeanor for driving without an ignition interlock device. Sebold pleaded guilty to and currently is serving five years on probation for the most recent charges. Since the 2010 incident, Sebold reports he has completed a treatment program and attended mental health classes. He reports he also regularly sees a therapist, attends regular meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous and works with his sponsor to comply with the terms of the probation. After Sebold reported the felony charge to the the chief disciplinary counsel’s office pursuant to the rules of professional conduct governing attorneys, the chief disciplinary counsel filed an information with this Court pursuant to Rule 5.21(c) asking this Court to discipline Sebold’s law license.

The chief disciplinary counsel argues this Court should suspend Sebold’s law license with no leave to apply for reinstatement for at least six months. He contends Sebold knowingly engaged in criminal conduct that seriously reflects on his fitness to practice. The disciplinary counsel asserts that, by pleading guilty to the charge of felony drunk driving, Sebold established he committed the acts underlying the crimes knowingly. Counsel argues that Sebold’s conduct reflects poorly on the reputation of the legal profession and demonstrates an indifference to the law and public safety. He argues, therefore, that suspension is the appropriate penalty.

Sebold argues that he did violate Rule 4-8.4 regarding professional misconduct but that discipline is based on the facts of each case. He contends his actions were not intentional but were the result of depression and alcohol abuse following his divorce. Sebold asserts he has taken action to remedy his depression and alcohol abuse, has made himself accountable to others for sobriety, and is now successfully sober. He argues the proper discipline is some discipline short of an active suspension of his license.

SC92219
State of Missouri ex rel. Courtney George v. Randy Verkamp, Bud Dean and Larry Stratman, as duly elected and serving commissioners of Phelps County, Missouri, County Commission, Carol Bennett as duly elected and serving County Clerk of Phelps County, Missouri and Carol Green, as the duly elected and serving treasurer of Phelps County, Missouri
Phelps County
Challenge to prosecutor’s pay rate

Listen to the oral argument:

Courtney George was represented during arguments by J.D. Baker of the Baker Law Firm in Osceola, and the commissioners were represented by Brendon Fox, assistant prosecuting attorney for Phelps County in Rolla.

Courtney George is the duly elected prosecuting attorney for Phelps County. Pursuant to section 56.265.1(1), RSMo, the salary for a full-time prosecuting attorney is the same as that for an associate circuit judge. Pursuant to the schedule set by the Missouri Citizens’ Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials, the salary for associate circuit judges increased in mid 2007 and again in 2008. George, however, has continued to receive the salary at the rate in effect in January 2007 when she took office. She filed a petition to compel the county commissioners, county clerk and county treasurer to compensate her at the same rate as the associate circuit judges and to pay her back pay to make up the difference in the rates. The circuit court denied George’s petition. She now seeks this Court’s writ to mandate that the county officials increase her salary and pay her back pay.

George argues the circuit court erred by denying her petition to compel the elected officials to pay her the salary for full-time prosecuting attorneys as set by section 56.265.1(1). She contends the court incorrectly determined that article VII, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution prohibits midterm increases in compensation because section 56.265.1(1) is an exception to the general prohibition. George asserts that section 56.265.1(1) fixes the method for determining the prosecutor salary even though it does not set the precise amount and was enacted before she took office.

The county officials argue the circuit court properly denied George’s petition. They contend the court correctly interpreted article VII, section 13 as prohibiting midterm increases in compensation. The officials assert that George is trying to extend the provisions of article V, section 20 to include prosecutors along with judges, but that is not what the drafters of the Missouri Constitution intended. They argue that previous cases allowed for midterm increases when a county changed its classification, but that is not the case here, so those cases do not apply here.