Section 3.7 General Versus Specific Releases

• Library: Settling Cases 2014

At common law, the release of one tortfeasor released others who were responsible for the same injury. From 1855 to 1983 the previous incarnation of § 537.060, now RSMo 2000, permitted parties to preserve their claims as to nonsettling tortfeasors if express provision was made. Birmingham v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 235 S.W.2d 322, 325–26 (Mo. 1950). Conversely, absent such a provision, a release—even if intended to be partial—had the effect of discharging all tortfeasors. Kestner v. Jakobe, 412 S.W.2d 205 (Mo. App. S.D. 1967).

The 1983 amendment to § 537.060 changed this rule by providing that the settlement agreement “shall not discharge any of the other tort-feasors for the damage unless the terms of the agreement so provide . . . .” Thus, under the 1983 amendment, “settling claimants are relieved from the obligation of expressly reserving claims against non-settling defendants.” Elsie v. Firemaster Apparatus, 759 S.W.2d 305, 306 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988) (quoting Manar v. Park Lane Med. Ctr., 753 S.W.2d 310, 312 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988)).

Section 537.060 does not mean, however, that parties can never enter into a general release that releases all potential defendants. In Rudisill v. Lewis, 796 S.W.2d 124 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990), the plaintiffs released one of two defendants. The language of...