From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ellis v. Reisenbichler

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Jul 8, 1986
712 S.W.2d 468 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)

Summary

holding that general release language met section 537.060's requirement that an intent to release non-settling tortfeasors be stated in the release itself

Summary of this case from McIntire v. Properties

Opinion

No. 51600.

July 8, 1986.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, GEORGE ADOLF, J.

David L. Campbell, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.

Paul J. Passanante, John Q. Masteller, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.


Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant Bi-State Development Agency's motion to dismiss. We affirm. The case was previously before us in an unappealable condition. Ellis v. Reisenbichler, 708 S.W.2d 248 (Mo.App. 1986). The judgment is now final following dismissal of the remaining defendant.

The litigation arose from a multi-vehicle accident. Plaintiff sued Hawkins, the driver of the automobile in which she was a passenger, Reisenbichler, the driver of the vehicle behind her, Bi-State whose bus was behind Reisenbichler, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on its uninsured motorist policy. State Farm settled and received a covenant not to sue. That covenant by its express terms released only State Farm and its insureds. On the same day plaintiff settled with defendant Reisenbichler and executed a "Release of all claims." That document provided:

". . . I do hereby release and forever discharge Bill P. Reisenbichler and any other person, firm or corporation charged or chargeable with responsibility for liability . . . from any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, loss of services, actions and causes of action, arising from any act or occurrence up to the present time and particularly on account of all personal injury, disability, property damage, loss or damages of any kind already sustained or that I may hereafter sustain in consequence of an accident [then a description of the accident described in plaintiff's petition]." (Emphasis supplied).

At a later point in the release it was recited to be "pursuant to provisions of R.S.Mo. Section 537.060."

Bi-State premised its motion to dismiss on this release as a general release of all joint tortfeasors, thereby releasing Bi-State as well as Reisenbichler. The release is a general release and by its express terms releases plaintiff's entire cause of action. Liberty v. J.A. Tobin Construction Co., Inc., 512 S.W.2d 886 (Mo.App. 1974) [5-9]; Clark v. Booth, 660 S.W.2d 316 (Mo.App. 1983). It is not restricted in scope to Reisenbichler but applies equally to Bi-State.

Plaintiff contends that the reference to Sec. 537.060, RSMo Cum.Supp. 1984, serves to make the release ambiguous. We do not agree. That statute provides that a release given to one or two or more persons does not discharge any other tortfeasor for the damage "unless the terms of the agreement so provide. . . ." The release before us does so provide by its express terms. Its intent as expressed by its plain language is not subject to be varied by parol or extrinsic evidence. Nor does State ex rel. Normandy Orthopedics, Inc. v. Crandall, 581 S.W.2d 829 (Mo. banc 1979) change the result. That case applied to independent and successive tortfeasors and not true joint tortfeasors as are involved here. Clark v. Booth, supra,.

Judgment affirmed.

CARL R. GAERTNER, P.J., and SNYDER, J., concur.


Summaries of

Ellis v. Reisenbichler

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Jul 8, 1986
712 S.W.2d 468 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)

holding that general release language met section 537.060's requirement that an intent to release non-settling tortfeasors be stated in the release itself

Summary of this case from McIntire v. Properties

finding that language releasing “any other person, firm or corporation charged or chargeable with responsibility for liability ... from any and all claims” indicated general release

Summary of this case from Kershaw v. City of Kansas City

finding that language releasing “any other person, firm or corporation charged or chargeable with responsibility for liability ... from any and all claims” indicated general release

Summary of this case from Kershaw v. City of Kansas City

finding that language releasing “any other person, firm or corporation charged or chargeable with responsibility for liability ... from any and all claims” indicated general release

Summary of this case from Kershaw v. City of Kansas City

finding that language releasing “any other person, firm or corporation charged or chargeable with responsibility for liability ... from any and all claims” indicated general release

Summary of this case from Kershaw v. City of Kansas City

In Ellis v. Reisenbichler, 712 S.W.2d 468 (Mo.App. 1986), the Missouri Court of Appeals found that the language releasing "any other person, firm or corporation charged or chargeable with responsibility for liability... from any and all claims..."

Summary of this case from Meyer v. General Motors Corp.

In Ellis, the court held that the release was a "general release and by its express terms releases plaintiff's entire cause of action."

Summary of this case from Slankard v. Thomas

In Ellis v. Reisenbichler, 712 S.W.2d 468, 469 (Mo.App. 1986), the Eastern District Court of Appeals, the same court that issued Elsie, was faced with a claim that a general release did not extinguish the claim against a tortfeasor who was not expressly mentioned in the release and paid no consideration.

Summary of this case from Rudisill v. Lewis
Case details for

Ellis v. Reisenbichler

Case Details

Full title:PAMELA ELLIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. BILL P. REISENBICHLER AND BI-STATE…

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One

Date published: Jul 8, 1986

Citations

712 S.W.2d 468 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

Slankard v. Thomas

In the instant case, the release named not only Thomas and his insurer, specifically, but it also described…

Rudisill v. Lewis

Finally, the "corrected" releases are inadmissible as evidence of the parties' intent in the original…