Old Standards Die Hard: MHRA Pre-Amendment “Contributing Factor” Standard Allowed for Harassment Claim Based on Events Before and After MHRA Amendment

In a recent ruling, the Missouri Court of Appeals examined whether harassment claims from before and after the 2017 amendment to the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) can still use the old “contributing factor” standard. The case of Sherice Renee Miller-Weaver against LMV Automotive Systems illustrates the court’s interpretation of employment discrimination law, highlighting the importance of understanding the MHRA’s nuances. Read on to learn about the court’s findings and their impact.

Putting Your Legal Malpractice Carrier on Notice of a Potential Claim: Must a Missouri Lawyer “Foresee” Changes in the Law?

In a recent case, attorneys are questioning changes in malpractice law. The ruling in *Ruiz v. Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Co.* highlights the complexities of legal malpractice coverage regarding a client’s death. The court’s focus on the “objectively reasonable attorney” standard has significant implications for practitioners. As the Missouri Supreme Court may review the case, attorneys should navigate the evolving landscape of legal malpractice liability.

What’s in a Name? Missouri’s Constitutional Prohibition Against Negligence-Based Claims Arising out of Alleged Sexual Misconduct of Clergy: Who Exactly Qualifies as Clergy?

The Missouri Court of Appeals clarified the definition of “clergy” under the state’s constitutional ban on negligence claims related to sexual misconduct. The ruling depends on whether an employee performs religious functions needing court intervention. This interpretation broadens First Amendment protections to all employees involved in religious activities, not only those designated as clergy. Learn about the impact of this ruling on Missouri’s religious organizations.

Missouri Appellate Court Finds Ambiguity in Anti-Stacking Provision, Allows Stacking of Limits of Liability in Four Separate Auto Liability Policies

In a significant ruling, the Missouri Court of Appeals has opened the door for policyholders to stack liability limits across multiple auto insurance policies. The case, Shelter Mutual Insurance Company v. Lester, centers on the interpretation of an anti-stacking provision that left many questioning its implications. With the court’s determination that “single loss” can refer to individual injuries rather than a collective event, the decision allows for greater coverage in cases involving multiple claimants. This ruling could reshape how auto liability policies are understood and utilized in Missouri. Read on to discover the full implications of this landmark decision.