ST. LOUIS — A Missouri appellate court ruled in favor of architecture firms, finding that the appellant's claims were time-barred.
Judge Renee D. Hardi-Tammons authored the decision. Judges Philip M. Hess and Gary M. Gaertner Jr. concurred with the decision.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss Amy R. Winget’s case, concluding that her action was time-barred and not saved by the applicable statutes, according to the Aug. 20 opinion filed in Division Three of the Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District.
Winget appealed the trial court's decision to dismiss her case against the respondents, K&S Associates and Horner & Shifrin.
She argued that the court wrongly applied the statute of repose, statute of limitations and savings statute to her personal injury claims.
Winget also contended that her case should not have been dismissed for failure to prosecute. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Winget initially filed her lawsuit against the respondents on July 31, 2017, claiming negligence related to injuries she discovered in February 2014, which she attributed to the negligent design and construction of chemical storage facilities at her workplace.
She voluntarily dismissed the case on Sept. 27, 2021, and the court issued an official dismissal order on Oct. 20, 2021. Winget refiled the case on Oct. 17, 2022. However, issues arose with serving the summons, and the trial court denied Winget's request for service due to her failure to pay the required fee and complete the necessary paperwork.
Horner & Shifrin and K&S Associates filed motions to dismiss the refiled case, arguing it was barred by the statute of repose, statute of limitations and the savings statute. They also cited Winget’s failure to prosecute.
The trial court granted these motions and dismissed the case with prejudice on Oct. 27, 2023.
The appellate court reviewed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the case de novo.
Under Missouri law, if a trial court does not specify the grounds for dismissal, the appellate court assumes the dismissal was based on at least one of the reasons presented in the motion to dismiss, Hardin-Tammons wrote.
Winget raised four main points on appeal, challenging the trial court’s application of the statute of repose, statute of limitations, and savings statute, as well as the dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The appellate court focused on the arguments related to the statute of limitations and the savings statute, as they were decisive.
Winget argued that her original lawsuit was filed within the five-year statute of limitations and that she refiled the case within one year of the voluntary dismissal, per Missouri’s savings statute.
However, the court noted that under Missouri law, the savings statute’s one-year period begins on the date of filing the voluntary dismissal, not the date the court issues an order. Since Winget filed her voluntary dismissal on Sept. 27, 2021, the savings statute expired on Sept. 27, 2022. Her refiled case on Oct. 17, 2022, was therefore outside both the five-year statute of limitations and the one-year savings statute, making it time-barred.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss Winget’s case, concluding that her action was time-barred and not saved by the applicable statutes.
The appellant was represented by Mark R. Bates.
The respondents were represented by Nicholas P. Meriage, David P. Bub, James P. Harkins, Brandon B. Copeland, William S. Thomas, James D. Ribaudo, Thomas L. Story and Phillip D. Stelzer.
Attorneys declined requests for comment.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District, Division Three case number: ED112242