election of remedies doctrine in Missouri

2012Id. “ ‘In [its] abstract form, [the election of remedies doctrine] becomes merely a legal version of the idea that one can’t have his cake and eat it too.’ ” Id. (quoting Dan B.

2012“The election of remedies doctrine, a doctrine of estoppel, originates upon the theory that where a party has the right to pursue one of two inconsistent remedies and he makes his election, institutes suit, and prosecutes it to final judgment, he cannot thereafter pursue another and inconsistent remedy.” Whittom v. Alexander-Richardson P’ship, 851 S.W.2d 504, 506 (Mo. banc 1993) (internal quotations omitted).

2005The election of remedies doctrine, a doctrine of estoppel, originates from the theory that “where a party has the right to pursue one of two inconsistent remedies and he makes his election, institutes suit, and prosecutes it to final judgment, he cannot thereafter pursue another and inconsistent remedy.” Whittom v. Alexander-Richardson Partnership, 851 S.W.2d 504, 506 (Mo. banc 1993){quoting Tooker, et al., v. Missouri Power & Light Co., 336 Mo. 592 , 80 S.W.2d 691, 695 (1935)).

2005The election of remedies doctrine, a doctrine of estoppel, originates from the theory that “where a party has the right to pursue one of two inconsistent remedies and he makes his election, institutes suit, and prosecutes it to final judgment, he cannot thereafter pursue another and inconsistent remedy.” Whittom v. Alexander-Richardson Partnership, 851 S.W.2d 504, 506 (Mo. banc 1993){quoting Tooker, et al., v. Missouri Power & Light Co., 336 Mo. 592 , 80 S.W.2d 691, 695 (1935)).

2022The Commission then issued a final award of 4 Claimant also cites Lewis v. Gilmore, 366 S.W.3d 522, 525 (Mo. banc 2012) in his brief on appeal for his proposition that a temporary award of workers’ compensation benefits is something of value for purposes of the election of remedies doctrine.

2022“The election of remedies doctrine provides that if there are two or more inconsistent remedies available, the election to pursue the one is a bar to any suit based on the other.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted).

2022See id. at 46-48 .

2022Id. at 46-48 .

2025As the Supreme Court explained in Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 176 S.W.3d 140 (Mo. banc 2005), The election of remedies doctrine is a doctrine of estoppel, basically providing that where a party has the right to pursue one of two inconsistent remedies and makes an election, institutes suit, and prosecutes it to final judgment, that party cannot thereafter pursue another and inconsistent remedy.

2012The election of remedies doctrine applies “where a party has the right to pursue one of two inconsistent remedies and makes an election, institutes suit, and prosecutes it to final judgment, that party cannot thereafter pursue another and inconsistent remedy.” Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 176 S.W.3d 140, 142 (Mo. banc 2005) (emphasis added).

2024We agree that there is a double recovery in this case and do not address the election of remedies argument.4 “It is a well-settled rule in Missouri that a party cannot be compensated for the same injury twice.” Norber v. Marcotte, 134 S.W.3d 651, 661 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004).

2024Stated another way, a “party is not entitled to be made more than whole or receive more than one full recovery for the same harm.” McGuire v. Kenoma, LLC, 375 S.W.3d 157, 177 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (internal 4 The election of remedies doctrine seeks to prevent double recovery and is “only applicable when a party has more than one remedy to correct a single wrong and the remedies are inconsistent.” McGuire v. Kenoma, LLC, 375 S.W.3d 157, 178 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (emphasis removed).

2024Stated another way, a “party is not entitled to be made more than whole or receive more than one full recovery for the same harm.” McGuire v. Kenoma, LLC, 375 S.W.3d 157, 177 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (internal 4 The election of remedies doctrine seeks to prevent double recovery and is “only applicable when a party has more than one remedy to correct a single wrong and the remedies are inconsistent.” McGuire v. Kenoma, LLC, 375 S.W.3d 157, 178 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (emphasis removed).

2022See Brookman I, 886 S.W.2d at 214 (after an employee elects his remedy, the employee is precluded from pursuing an additional, inconsistent remedy under the election of remedies doctrine). 1.

2022Brookman I, 886 S.W.2d at 215 .

2022See id.

2022The timeline is as follows: (1) on July 31, 2014, Claimant filed his workers’ compensation claim in the Division of Workers’ Compensation; (2) on August 9, 2016, the ALJ issued his initial decision relating to Claimant’s workers’ compensation 5 In addition to relying on Brookman II, 924 S.W.2d at 289 , we also note section 287.510 and the language in the Commission’s July 19, 2017 temporary award support our finding that the temporary award is not a final judgment for purposes of the election of remedies doctrine.

2022We find our decision in Brookman v. Henry Transp., 924 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996) (“Brookman II”) to be instructive for our analysis of the election of remedies doctrine as it relates to this case.

2012The election of remedies doctrine provides that “if there are two or more inconsistent remedies available, the election to pursue the one is a bar to any suit based upon the other.” U.S. Fidelity & Guar. v. Fidelity Nat’l Bank & Trust, Co., 232 Mo.App. 412 , 109 S.W.2d 47, 48 (1937).

2012The election of remedies doctrine provides that “if there are two or more inconsistent remedies available, the election to pursue the one is a bar to any suit based upon the other.” U.S. Fidelity & Guar. v. Fidelity Nat’l Bank & Trust, Co., 232 Mo.App. 412 , 109 S.W.2d 47, 48 (1937).

2012“The doctrine is only applicable when a party has more than one remedy to correct a single wrong and the remedies are inconsistent.” Tolbert v. Automotive Finance Corp., 341 S.W.3d 195, 200 (Mo.App.

2005Trimble v. Pracna, 167 S.W.3d 706, 711 (Mo. banc 2005).

2005Trimble v. Pracna, 167 S.W.3d 706, 711 (Mo. banc 2005).

2005Therefore, at the time of the foreclosure, Stromberg did not have “full knowledge of all facts,” as the election of remedies doctrine requires. *31 See Skandia America Reinsurance Corp., 857 S.W.2d at 846 .

2005Twellman v. Lindell Trust Co., 534 S.W.2d 83, 94 (Mo.App.1976). ‘Where one elects to pursue one or two or more inconsistent remedies, with full knowledge of all facts, and receives full satisfaction therefrom, he can no longer assert his cause of action.” Skandia America Reinsurance Corp. v. Financial Guardian Group, 857 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Mo.App.

2005Twellman v. Lindell Trust Co., 534 S.W.2d 83, 94 (Mo.App.1976). ‘Where one elects to pursue one or two or more inconsistent remedies, with full knowledge of all facts, and receives full satisfaction therefrom, he can no longer assert his cause of action.” Skandia America Reinsurance Corp. v. Financial Guardian Group, 857 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Mo.App.

2004See Hollipeter, 523 S.W.2d at 598-99 ; Pemberton, 224 S.W.2d at 385 .

2004Cook v. Holcomb, 854 S.W.2d 78, 80 (Mo.App.

2004Benefit-of-the-bargain damages are calculated as the “difference between the actual value of the property and what its value would have been if it had been as represented.” Heberer v. Shell Oil Co., 744 S.W.2d 441, 443 (Mo. banc 1988).

2002Freeman v. Myers, 774 S.W.2d 892, 895 (Mo.App.

2001See Harris, 817 S.W.2d at 592 .

2001Harris v. Union Electric Co., 817 S.W.2d 591, 592 (Mo.App.

1993The election of remedies doctrine, a doctrine of estoppel, originates upon the theory that “where a party has the right to pursue one of two inconsistent remedies and he makes his election, institutes suit, and prosecutes it to final judgment, he cannot thereafter pursue another and inconsistent remedy.” Tooker, et al., v. Missouri Power & Light Co., 336 Mo. 592 , 80 S.W.2d 691, 695 (1935); see also Berger v. Mercantile Trust Co., 352 S.W.2d 644, 647 (Mo.1961).

1993Wallace v. Bounds, 369 S.W.2d 138, 141 (Mo.1963).

1985Clayton Brokerage Co. v. Pilla, 632 S.W.2d 300, 305 (Mo.App.1982), because those remedies are not inconsistent.

1985Clayton Brokerage Co. v. Pilla, 632 S.W.2d 300, 305 (Mo.App.1982), because those remedies are not inconsistent.