Introduction

The McCrackin v. Mullen and Safeco Insurance Company of America case, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Missouri on December 23, 2024, establishes a pivotal precedent concerning an insurer’s right to intervene in wrongful death actions. This case delineates the parameters under which insurance companies can seek to stay ongoing tort proceedings in favor of separate declaratory judgment actions. The primary parties involved are Jeromy McCrackin, the plaintiff, Tynan Mullen, and Safeco Insurance Company of America, the appellant. The core issue revolves around Safeco’s attempt to intervene in the wrongful death lawsuit to protect its interests in a related federal declaratory judgment proceeding.

Summary of the Judgment

Safeco Insurance Company of America appealed the circuit court’s decision to deny its motion to intervene in the wrongful death action filed by McCrackin. Safeco sought intervention solely to request a stay of the wrongful death proceedings pending the outcome of a declaratory judgment action in federal court, which sought to determine Safeco’s duty to defend or indemnify Mullen. The Supreme Court of Missouri found that Safeco had indeed met the requirements under Rule 52.12(a)(2) to intervene as a matter of right. Consequently, the Court vacated the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Safeco the opportunity to seek a stay of the wrongful death action.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references and builds upon established Missouri case law. Notably, it cites State ex rel. Mid-Century Insurance Co. v. McKelvey, 666 S.W.2d 457 (Mo. App. 1984), which first recognized the procedure for insurers to intervene in tort actions to seek stays pending coverage determinations. Other significant cases include:

• WHITEHEAD v. LAKESIDE HOSP. ASS'N, 844 S.W.2d 475 (Mo. App. 1992)
• BALLMER v. BALLMER, 923 S.W.2d 365 (Mo. App. 1996)
• U-Haul Co. of Mo. v. Carter, 567 S.W.3d 680 (Mo. App. 2019)
• Loveland v. Austin, 626 S.W.3d 716 (Mo. App. 2021)

These precedents collectively affirm that insurers with coverage disputes can and should intervene in underlying tort actions to protect their interests, particularly by seeking stays until declaratory judgments resolve coverage issues.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court of Missouri's decision hinges on the interpretation of Rule 52.12(a)(2) of the Missouri Court Rules, which allows for intervention when an applicant has a relevant interest that might be impaired by the ongoing proceedings. Safeco demonstrated that it has a direct interest in the wrongful death action due to its policy obligations to defend and potentially indemnify Mullen. The Court emphasized that Safeco’s intervention was not to control litigation but to seek a stay pending the resolution of coverage issues in a separate action.

The Court also addressed Safeco’s reliance on the established procedural pathway outlined in McKelvey and subsequent cases, reinforcing the notion that insurers must act proactively to protect their interests. By intervening, Safeco avoids the pitfalls of being bound by a judgment it may ultimately not be liable for, thus aligning with the principles set forth in Bryers v. McCrackin, 512 S.W.3d 17 (Mo. banc 2016).

Impact

This judgment solidifies the procedural rights of insurers to intervene in tort actions to seek stays based on pending coverage determinations in separate legal actions. It ensures that insurers can effectively manage their defense obligations without being unfairly bound by premature judgments. Future cases involving wrongful death and similar tort actions will reference this ruling to determine the legitimacy of insurer interventions under Rule 52.12(a)(2). Additionally, it emphasizes the necessity for insurers to file declaratory judgments concurrently with tort actions to safeguard their interests efficiently.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Intervention as a Matter of Right

Intervention allows a third party, not originally involved in a lawsuit, to become a party due to a vested interest in the outcome. When an action is "as a matter of right," it means that under specific conditions outlined by the court rules, the third party is entitled to intervene without needing the court's permission.

Rule 52.12(a)(2)

This rule permits individuals or entities to intervene in an ongoing case if they have an interest relating to the subject matter and if the ongoing case could affect their ability to protect that interest. Essentially, if the outcome of the current case could impact the intervenor's rights or obligations, they may seek to join the case to safeguard their interests.

Declaratory Judgment Action

A declaratory judgment is a court's determination of the rights of parties without ordering any specific action or awarding damages. In this context, Safeco filed a declaratory judgment to clarify whether it had the obligation to defend or indemnify Mullen under the insurance policy.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Missouri's decision in McCrackin v. Mullen and Safeco Insurance Company of America affirms the critical role of Rule 52.12(a)(2) in allowing insurers to intervene in tort actions to protect their interests effectively. By permitting Safeco to seek a stay of the wrongful death action pending a declaratory judgment, the Court ensures that insurers are not unduly bound by premature judgments when coverage issues are still unresolved. This decision not only upholds established Missouri legal principles but also provides clarity and procedural guidance for both insurers and insured parties in future litigation involving wrongful death and insurance coverage disputes.

The ruling underscores the importance of timely and strategic legal actions by insurers to manage their defense obligations, ultimately contributing to a more equitable and efficient judicial process.