Jacobson Warehouse Co., Inc. v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., No. 20-1595 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
SMI, a supermarket retailer, and XPO, a logistics company, both appeal the district court's orders and judgment in a breach of contract and tort dispute arising out of the parties' business relationship.
The Eighth Circuit concluded that the parties' agreement bars SMI from recovering non-direct damages from XPO; the Limitation of Liability Provision contractually limits both parties' liability to each other, but does not exonerate them, and is therefore not contrary to Missouri public policy; the Limitation of Liability Provision does not violate Missouri public policy simply because it prevents SMI from recovering its mitigation damages; there was no error in the district court's determination at summary judgment that three categories of SMI's claimed damages were consequential damages; there was no error in granting judgment as a matter of law on SMI's negligence counterclaim where SMI has not provided sufficient evidence to show that XPO breached a duty of care other than its contractual duty under the agreement; there was no error in the district court's determination that two emails SMI sought to exclude were protected by the attorney-client privilege; and there was no error in awarding statutory prejudgment interest to XPO.
In regard to XPO's arguments on appeal, the court concluded that there was no error in the district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law on SMI's breach of contract counterclaim, and there was no error in the district court's determination that XPO was not entitled to attorney's fees under the agreement.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Grasz and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Contracts and torts. A provision of the parties' contract unambiguously bars defendant from recovering non-direct damages from plaintiff; the provision does not violate Missouri public policy; the district court did not err in determining at summary judgment that three categories of defendant's damages - lost profits, expenses incurred in moving inventory and stocking stores and expenses incurred in correcting plaintiff's alleged mismanagement - were consequential damages and barred by the agreement; the district court did not err in entering judgment as a matter of law for plaintiff on defendant's negligence counterclaim as defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to show plaintiff breached a duty of care other than it contractual duty under the agreement; the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that two emails defendant sought to exclude did not seek or reflect legal advice and were not, therefore, protected by the attorney-client privilege; no error in allowing plaintiff prejudgment interest on its claim for action on account; concerning plaintiff's cross-appeal, the district court did not err in denying plaintiff judgment as a matter of law on defendant's breach of contract claim and did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for an award of attorneys' fees, as a contract provision on which plaintiff relies did not authorize recovery of fees.
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.