Results

MSJ Win

Jeff Baker and Stacey Dowd recently obtained summary judgement for its client and its insurer, Secura Insurance Companies, in a case pending in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. The case involved the construction of a large home located in Ladue, Missouri.  Plaintiffs alleged that the stone exterior of their home was not properly constructed and needed repairs of nearly $1 million. Mr. Baker and Ms. Dowd represented a third-party defendant that performed the stone work on Plaintiffs’ home.  On behalf of its client, Mr. Baker and Ms. Dowd argued that the statute of limitations and the economic loss doctrine barred Plaintiffs’ claims against its client and the general contractor.  The Court granted SWR’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all pending third-party claims against SWR’s client based on the briefs and oral arguments provided by Mr. Baker and Ms. Dowd.  The Court’s decision granting SWR’s motion for summary judgment was a significant victory for the client and its insurer.

Smith et al. v. Safeguard Properties Management, LLC et al.

Sean Edwards won summary judgment on behalf of a defendant real estate property preservation company in a case pending in Wyandotte County, Kansas, which has been affirmed by the Kansas Court of Appeals.  Plaintiffs asserted negligence and negligent misrepresentation by the property preservation company.  The issues in the case were whether a property preservation company had duties which ran to a purchaser of real estate with whom the property preservation company had no relationship and whether the plaintiffs justifiably relied on the minimal information they obtained before purchasing the real estate.

The plaintiffs purchased real estate which they alleged had substantial mold and water damage issues without undertaking due diligence to first ascertain the condition of the real estate.  Because the property preservation company had no relationship to the plaintiffs, the District Court ruled and the Court of Appeals affirmed that no duties ran from the property preservation company to the plaintiffs, and the minimal information on the real estate obtained by the plaintiffs was insufficient to constitute justifiable reliance necessary for a negligent misrepresentation claim against the property preservation company.