Missouri Supreme Court Revives Arbitration in $10M Life Insurance Dispute Involving Law Firm and Deceased Partner’s Widow
On November 6, 2025, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s denial and granted a law firm’s motion to compel arbitration in a high-stakes dispute over a $10 million life insurance policy. The case, Maune, Raichle, Hartley, French & Gold, LLC v. Donna M. Lawson (No. SC100123), centers on the estate of late attorney James P. Raichle, who died in 2022. His widow, Donna Lawson, sued the firm (MR Law) alleging it wrongfully claimed the policy proceeds as a partnership asset under their operating agreement. The ruling shifts the battle from state courts to arbitration, emphasizing the broad scope of the firm’s partnership arbitration clause.
Case Background
- Parties Involved:
- Plaintiff: Donna M. Lawson, widow and executor of James P. Raichle’s estate.
- Defendant: Maune, Raichle, Hartley, French & Gold, LLC (MR Law), a St. Louis-based plaintiffs’ firm specializing in mesothelioma litigation.
- Dispute Origin: Raichle was a founding partner at MR Law. The firm’s operating agreement included a $10 million key-man life insurance policy on partners, with proceeds designated for buyouts or firm stability upon death. After Raichle’s passing, Lawson claimed the full payout as personal to her husband, while MR Law argued it belonged to the partnership to cover his equity interest.
- Initial Proceedings: Lawson filed suit in St. Louis City Circuit Court in 2023, seeking declaratory judgment and the policy proceeds. MR Law moved to compel arbitration per the operating agreement’s clause, which mandates arbitration for “any dispute arising out of or relating to” the agreement. The trial court denied the motion, ruling the dispute fell outside the clause’s scope. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed in late 2024.
Key Supreme Court Ruling
In a unanimous decision authored by Judge W. Brent Powell, the court reversed and remanded, holding:
- Arbitrability Determination: Under the Missouri Uniform Arbitration Act (RSMo § 435.400 et seq.), questions about the arbitration agreement’s scope—including whether the life insurance claim “relates to” partnership liabilities—are for the arbitrator, not the court, unless the agreement explicitly states otherwise.
- Agreement Validity: The court affirmed the clause’s enforceability, noting that partners Maune and Raichle signed as individuals representing the firm. “They were MR Law. They signed the OA [Operating Agreement] as individuals, and, because they comprised all the partners of MR Law, they had the authority to – and, therefore, did – submit partnership claims and liabilities between them to arbitration under section 358.090.3(5).”
- No ‘Exceptional Circumstances’: The lower court’s denial was deemed arbitrary, as it ignored federal and state precedents favoring arbitration (e.g., FAA § 2 and Missouri’s pro-arbitration policy).
The ruling revives MR Law’s bid to arbitrate, potentially delaying resolution but shielding the dispute from public court scrutiny. Arbitration will now proceed under American Arbitration Association rules, with the arbitrator deciding coverage, buyout calculations, and distribution.
Implications
- For Law Firms: Reinforces the power of broad arbitration clauses in partnership agreements to encompass post-death disputes like insurance buyouts. Firms may increasingly rely on such provisions to handle sensitive partner exits privately.
- For Beneficiaries/Estates: Highlights challenges in contesting firm claims on personal assets tied to business agreements. Lawson’s team may appeal on federal grounds or seek to vacate any arbitral award.
- Broader Context: This follows a 2024 appellate denial (overturned here) and aligns with trends in insurance litigation favoring arbitration to resolve complex partnership disputes. The $10M at stake underscores the financial risks in key-man policies.
Full opinion available on the Missouri Supreme Court website. As of November 9, 2025, no further filings reported; arbitration scheduling expected soon. For similar disputes, consult counsel specializing in partnership and insurance law.