507.060. Persons having claims against plaintiff or plaintiff's insured may be joined as defendants and required to interplead, when — limitation on liability, when — dismissal not required, when. — 1. Persons having claims against the plaintiff or plaintiff's insured may be joined as defendants and required to interplead when their claims are such that the plaintiff is or may be exposed to multiple liability, including multiple claims against the same insurance coverage. It is not ground for objection to the joinder that the claims of the several claimants or the titles on which their claims depend do not have a common origin or are not identical but are adverse to and independent of one another, or that the plaintiff avers that he is not liable in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants. A defendant exposed to similar liability may obtain such interpleader by way of cross-claim or counterclaim. The provisions of this section supplement and do not in any way limit the joinder of parties permitted in section 507.040.
2. For purposes of this subsections 2 to 5 of this section, the term "plaintiff" means the insurer, or any entity which is subject to sections 537.700 to 537.756 or which provides risk management services to any public or private entity, of an insured person or entity subject to more than one claim arising out of any one incident or occurrence, but only when such claims total an amount in excess of the plaintiff's total limits of coverage available for that one incident or occurrence.
3. For purposes of this subsections 2 to 5 of this section, the term "claim" means all actual or potential claims against a plaintiff or plaintiff's insured arising from the one incident or occurrence referred to in subsection 2 of this section.
4. If, within ninety days after receiving the first offer of settlement or demand for payment by a claimant, a plaintiff files an action for interpleader under this section and the plaintiff timely deposits all of its applicable limits of coverage into court within thirty days of the court's order granting interpleader, the plaintiff shall not be liable to any insured or defendant for any amount in excess of the plaintiff's contractual limits of coverage in the interpleader or any other action, so long as the plaintiff defends all of its insureds in good faith from any claims or lawsuits for damages allegedly caused by the incident or occurrence for which the limits of coverage were paid into court, even after depositing its limits of coverage into court notwithstanding any policy provision releasing the plaintiff of its duty to defend any of the insureds. Any insured's refusal of the plaintiff's good faith defense shall not affect the plaintiff's rights under this section.
5. Nothing in this section shall require a release or dismissal of any claim for damages against any insured person or entity upon interpleader by an insurer of that person or entity.
6. Nothing in this section shall be construed, expressly or by implication, to amend, modify, or abrogate any insured's right to consent or control the defense or settlement of any claim as may be provided in any insurance contract.
Notes of Decisions
Plaza Express Co. v. Galloway, 280 S.W.2d 17 (Mo. 1955).
· cites it 68× “Defendants-respondents' motion to dismiss plaintiffs-appellants' "bill in the nature of a bill of interpleader" was sustained on the ground that no claim had been stated within the provisions of Section 507.060. All section references are to RSMo 1949, V.”
Com. Bank of St. Louis Cnty. v. James, 658 S.W.2d 17 (Mo. 1983).
· cites it 6× “Section 507.060. 4 Although § 507.060 has broadened the scope of interpleader and abolished many of its former technical requisites, Plaza Express Co.”
Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Wiest, 567 S.W.2d 341 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 8× “*344 Appellant argues that the trial court erred in sustaining the motion for summary judgment because it appears from the averments in the petition for interpleader that there are persons who have claims against appellant and that these claims are of such nature that appellant…”
M. F. A. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hill, 320 S.W.2d 559 (Mo. 1959).
· cites it 8× “Hill and Barney Malone, in two counts, one for inter-pleader under Section 507.060, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., and the other for a declaratory judgment pursuant to Sections 527.”
Green Valley Seed, Inc. v. Plenge, 72 S.W.3d 601 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “07; section 507.060 RSMo 2000. 1 “The propriety of interpleader should not turn on the particular merits of the claims themselves, but on whether the stakeholder faces multiple vexation and litigation because of such claims.”
Ins. Co. of North Am. v. Skyway Aviation, Inc., 828 S.W.2d 888 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Interpleader is an equitable remedy, existing independent of § 507.060, RSMo 1986, and Rule 52.07, and is governed by equitable principles.”
Sec.-Mut. Bank & Trust Co. v. Buder, 341 S.W.2d 782 (Mo. 1960).
· cites it 8× “He also cites a series of cases from other jurisdictions which do not have statutes similar to section 507.060, cases which quote the classical prerequisites of inter-pleader as set forth in 4 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, Sec.”
St. Louis Sw. Ry. Co. v. Meyer, 272 S.W.2d 249 (Mo. 1954).
· cites it 4× “In part the appellants’ arguments misconceive the nature of modern interpleader and the changes wrought by oúr enactment and recent adoption in Section 507.060 of Federal Rule 22. Since the questions upon this appeal arise upon the record and the proof adduced, and not the…”
Shaw v. Greathouse, 296 S.W.2d 151 (Mo. Ct. App. 1956).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiff contends that his petition alleges sufficient facts to state a claim within the provision of Section 507.060. This section reads: “Persons having claims against the plaintiff may be joined as defendants and required to interplead when their claims are such that the…”
Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Mildenberger, 359 S.W.2d 380 (Mo. Ct. App. 1962).
· cites it 2× “exist, at the date of the loss, but must also appear, exist, when the actual payment by the insurance company is to be made and must not have, between the fire and the date of payment, been extinguished by payment of the debt.”
Harris v. Goggins, 363 S.W.2d 717 (Mo. Ct. App. 1963).
· cites it 4× “* * * "We must conclude, therefore, that instant plaintiffs `may be exposed to double * * * liability' within the meaning of Section 507.060." (280 S.W.2d l. c. 23.) We are aware that the interpleader action brought by plaintiff in the Plaza Express Company case was brought "for…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.