Opinion
No. ED 85686
August 30, 2005
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Steven H. Goldman.
Richard L. Rollings, Liz J. Shepherd, Camdenton, MO, Louisville, KY, Attorneys for Appellant.
John W. Cowden, Vincent H. Venker, II, Kansas City, MO, St. Louis, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.
Before Nannette A. Baker, P.J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr. and Sherri B. Sullivan, JJ.
ORDER
James and Lori Hensel (collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Thunder Aviation Services, Inc., Thunder Aviation Acquisition, Inc., Thunder Air Charter, Inc., and Thunder Aviation NA, Inc. (collectively referred to as Thunder Defendants) and American Air Network, Inc., Air Ambulance Care International, Inc., d/b/a Care Flight International and Air M.D., Inc., and Henry Air, Ltd. (collectively referred to as American Defendants) (all the defendants are collectively referred to as Defendants) on Plaintiffs' petition for personal injuries and loss of consortium arising from an airplane crash in Kentucky. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of Thunder Defendants and American Defendants because (1) any failure to comply with Rule 9.03 was cured or curable and the petition was therefore filed within the statute of limitations, (2) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the petition by interlineation, and (3) Defendants waived the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations by failing to specify the particular statute of limitations in their answers to the petition.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. There are no genuine issues of material fact and Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).