Depositors Insurance Company v. Carolyn Hall, No. 17-2600 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case. The district court did not err in piercing the corporate veil and holding Hall personally liable for attorney's fees incurred by Depositors in a fire-loss diversity action filed against her corporation; the district court did not err in finding she had complete and control of the corporation, used her control to commit a fraudulent act and that her control and wrong doing was the proximate cause of Depositor's injury.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2600 ___________________________ Depositors Insurance Company, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Hall’s Restaurant, Inc., lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant, Carolyn Hall, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: March 29, 2018 Filed: April 3, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Carolyn Hall appeals from the judgment of the district court1 that “pierced the corporate veil” to hold her personally liable for attorney’s fees incurred by Depositors Insurance Company in a fire-loss diversity action filed against her Missouri corporation, Hall’s Restaurant, Inc. Whether to pierce a corporate veil is a legal determination that is governed by state law. See Stoebner v. Lingenfelter, 115 F.3d 576, 579 (8th Cir. 1997). Reviewing the district court’s legal determination de novo and its supporting factual findings for clear error, we conclude that the district court correctly found that (1) Hall possessed complete control and domination of the restaurant; (2) Hall used her control to commit a fraudulent act; and (3) Hall’s control and wrong doing was the proximate cause of the insurance company’s injury. Therefore, the court properly granted Depositors’s motion to pierce the corporate veil. See Haynes v. Edgerson, 240 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Mo. App. 2007) (discussing elements required to pierce corporate veil). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
