How to navigate multiple interpleaders to get the best results

Interpleaders under Missouri’s R.S.Mo. § 507.060 are powerful tools for insurers, and minefields for plaintiff attorneys. In a recent truck crash case involving mass injuries and multiple insurers, I found myself navigating not one, but three interpleaders while trying to preserve value for my client.

I represented the passenger in a pickup that was hit head-on by a dump truck on an interstate in Kansas City. The dump truck’s front driver side tire blew out, causing it to cross the median into oncoming traffic. The lawsuits that followed were consolidated into one case and led to three interpleaders.

Here are some of the things I learned while handling a multi‑defendant truck crash with multiple interpleaders.

Interpleader funds are not settlements and do not trigger setoff

Money recovered in an interpleader is not a settlement. As such, there is no offset under R.S.Mo. § 537.060 (Missouri’s offset statute).

Missouri’s interpleader statute, R.S.Mo. § 507.060, allows insurance carriers to avoid extracontractual damages by interpleading the policy limits in court.

Importantly, the interpleader statute states, “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.” Id. at subsection (5).

To get an offset under § 537.060, a party must prove (1) a settlement agreement was reached, and (2) the agreement was compensation for the same injuries underlying the judgment. Poage, 523 S.W.3d at 529.

Interpleader does not release the insured from liability

Defendants in personal injury lawsuits are not released when their carrier interpleads their policy limits. An insurance carrier wanting to enjoy the benefits of Missouri’s interpleader statute must continue to “defend[] 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.” 507.060.

The carrier enjoys the protection from bad faith cases, but their insureds are still exposed to the risk of a money judgment.

Strategic implications in the underlying state court case

Soon after the crash, several lawsuits were filed against the dump truck owner and driver in Jackson County Circuit Court, including my clients’. These were all consolidated.

After receiving a settlement demand, the insurance carrier for the dump truck’s owner and driver filed an interpleader action under R.S.Mo. Sec. 507.060 in Federal Court. All but my clients dismissed their Jackson County lawsuits and awaited distribution of the interpleaded funds. However, my expert was certain there were other liable parties. We kept our Jackson County lawsuit active and used discovery to explore other claims.

Using ongoing discovery to identify additional liable parties

We learned the tire that failed had been sold by the tire shop in an unsafe condition.

We amended the Jackson County lawsuit to add product liability counts against the tire shop. Once they were served and entered the lawsuit, we submitted a policy limits demand. The insurance carrier for the tire shop then filed an interpleader in Federal Court, naming all the victims of the crash, including my clients and those who had already dismissed their lawsuits. Because there were no settlements, the injured parties’ prior recoveries didn’t reduce liability. I believe this drove the tire shop’s insurer to interplead.

Expanding liability through agency and control theories

We also learned the dump truck driver was controlled by a construction contractor and an intermediary supplying trucks to the job site.

We first added the intermediary to the Jackson County lawsuit under an agency theory. As with the tire shop’s insurance carrier, the intermediary’s insurance carrier chose to file an interpleader under R.S.Mo. 507.060 after getting a demand. I believe the carrier filed because there was no setoff from earlier interpleaders and we maintained discovery leverage.

The claims against the construction contractor were settled last.

Lessons from navigating multiple interpleaders

Keeping the lawsuit alive in Jackson County Circuit Court allowed us to discover other parties we believed were liable for the crash. The absence of any offset from money the injured parties received in the interpleaders I believe was the driving force in the carrier’s decisions to pay policy limits via interpleader.

For plaintiff attorneys handling high-damage, multi-party cases, Missouri’s interpleader and offset statutes create real tension. Insurers may seek protection while exposing their insureds to personal liability. In my case, keeping the state court action alive and digging deeper into fault paid off, both strategically and financially. The biggest lesson: interpleaders aren’t the end of the case. Sometimes, they’re just the beginning.

Matt Meyerkord is a partner at Meyerkord, Russell & Hergott in Kansas City.