The Big Question: Timing and Filing in Missouri under Rule 66.01(d)
A critical question many spouses often grapple with is: “Can a spouse bring a loss of consortium claim under Rule 66.01(d) in Missouri if the spouse letter was mailed, the motion for leave to file an amended petition was filed within 30 days, but there was no hearing until after the 30 days?”
To answer this directly, in the context of Missouri’s Rule 66.01(d), a spouse indeed can bring forth a loss of consortium claim if the original personal injury action was timely filed. This rule permits the consolidation of the two claims. The claim for loss of consortium is not considered time-barred as long as the spouse is a co-party in the action or if notice has been properly given.
Thompson v. Brown Williamson Tobacco: The Key Case
This case stands as the most directly relevant to the research request. Thompson v. Brown Williamson Tobacco goes in-depth on the question of whether a loss of consortium claim becomes time-barred when the initial personal injury action was timely filed. Rule 66.01(d) is discussed extensively, reinforcing the understanding that the rule allows for the consolidation of the two claims. The key takeaway from this case is that the loss of consortium claim is not time-barred as long as the spouse is a co-party in the action or proper notice has been given.
Maddox v. Truman Medical Center, Inc: Clarifying Timeliness
Maddox v. Truman Medical Center, Inc. offers valuable insights into the timing of a loss of consortium claim in Missouri. It further confirms that the failure of one spouse to sue for injuries within the statute of limitations does not negate a suit for loss of consortium that was filed in a timely manner.
Bridges v. Van Enterprises: Requirements for a Loss of Consortium Claim
Bridges v. Van Enterprises adds additional context to the analysis, outlining the general prerequisites for a loss of consortium claim in Missouri, and emphasizing that the claim survives independently of the injured spouse’s claim.
Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. MacVittie and Holmes v. Union Pac. R.R: Understanding Filing Timings
While Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. MacVittie and Holmes v. Union Pac. R.R do not directly relate to the research request, they provide useful guidance on the timing of filing motions and amendments, offering clarity on how courts consider the timeliness of filings in relation to the applicable rules.
Luster v. State and Pandjiris v. Oliver Cadillac Co: General Information
Lastly, Luster v. State and Pandjiris v. Oliver Cadillac Co, although not directly related to the research request, contribute general information about the importance of filing deadlines and the elements of a loss of consortium claim in Missouri.
If you’re in St. Louis, Missouri, or surrounding areas and seeking top-tier legal counsel for matters related to personal injury claims, loss of consortium, and more, don’t hesitate to reach out for expert legal advice
Other Relevant Cases
Holmes v. Union Pac. R.R., No. WD82867 (Mo. Ct. App. Jun. 9, 2020)
Holmes v. Union Pac. R.R. discusses the circumstances under which a court should allow a party to amend a pleading, which is relevant to the research request’s question about filing an amended petition.
“But here, unlike Costa, Ms. Holmes took the additional affirmative step to provide the circuit court with a proposed amended pleading that addressed the circuit court’s concern as to her legal status as a personal representative for her late husband’s estate—by attaching as an exhibit to such amended pleading the probate court order appointing her as the personal representative. Ms. Holmes never sought to add new claims or change the nature of her underlying FELA claim; instead, she only sought to clarify that she was wearing the appropriate “litigation hat” to authorize her to pursue the same FELA claim that she had always made on behalf of her late husband against Union Pacific. Under these circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to refuse to permit Ms. Holmes to amend her pleading by way of “form” and not “substance.””
“On remand, the circuit court is instructed to permit Ms. Holmes to file her amended pleading, and her appointment as personal representative shall be deemed to relate back to the original pleading filed in the underlying FELA wrongful death claim. The circuit court’s judgment of dismissal is vacated, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with our ruling today. /s/___ Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge Gary D. Witt, Judge, concurs.”
Pandjiris v. Oliver Cadillac Co., 98 S.W.2d 978 (Mo. 1936)
Although the case does not directly address the research request, it does discuss the elements of a loss of consortium claim in Missouri, which may be helpful in answering the query.
Eickhoff v. Gelbach, 611 S.W.3d 834 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)
This case discusses the timing of filing a motion for summary judgment, which may be analogous to the timing of filing a motion for leave to file an amended petition.
“On March 5, 2018, the Eickhoffs filed a petition asserting four claims against the Gelbachs: (Count I) general negligence, (Count II) negligence per se , (Count III) premises liability, and (Count IV) loss of consortium. On March 1, 2019, the Gelbachs moved for summary judgment on all counts.”