Corozzo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Opinion handed down July 25, 2017

            After prospective employees Joshua Corozzo and Arthor Ruff were given a consumer report disclosure form from Walmart[1], they filed suit against Walmart for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (“FCRA”) provision requiring the form not contain extraneous information.[2] The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, held that neither Corozzo nor Ruff had standing to challenge the FCRA violation because the Supreme Court of the United States, in Spokeo v. Robins, Inc., held that an alleged FCRA violation alone was not an injury, and therefore, the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.[3] Although the Court’s holding is clear, it failed to meaningfully distinguish federal, Article III standing and Missouri’s state-specific standing doctrine, effectively making them one in the same in terms of statutory violations.

McHugh v. Slomka

Opinion handed down August 8, 2017

            The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District’s, decision in McHugh v. Slomka is the first case in Missouri to address a contractual provision in a Marital Separation Agreement about the modification of spousal maintenance in a post-dissolution proceeding. This decision follows other states in allowing the enforcement of specific bargained-for terms in a Marital Separation Agreement, contrary to the general rule that a spouse’s post-dissolution increase in income does not, on its own, establish a basis for an upward modification in the maintenance amount.

Rock Port Market, Inc. v. Affiliated Foods Midwest Cooperative, Inc.

Opinion handed down July 25, 2017

            Missouri courts distinguish breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a contract-based claim, from the tort of bad faith.[1]  Rock Port continues to emphasize this distinction.[2]  The court allowed a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing but did not recognize the tort of bad faith in a new context: commercial contracts.[3]  This was because there was no fiduciary relationship between the parties.[4]  While recognizing the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in commercial contracts might discourage unethical business practices, the tort makes it difficult to estimate potential damages when entering into a contract and discourages an economically efficient breach of contract.[5]