Fulton v. Miss. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CT-01529-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-CT-01529-SCT ; 2009-CA-01529-COA ; 2009-CA-01529-COA ; 2009-CT-01529-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-11-2012 Opinion Author: Dickinson, P.J. Holding: Court of Appeals reversed; Circuit court reinstated and affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - M.R.C.P. 59(e) - Post-judgment motion - Attorney's fees - Extracontractual damages Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial/Attorney's Fees Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-17-2009 Appealed from: Yazoo County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: Denied the Appellant's motion for attorney's fees pursuant to MRCP 59(e). Case Number: 2008-CI02 |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals by finding that the Court of Appeals erred in classifying attorney’s fees as "collateral" under MRCP 59(e) analysis as the Appellant had no post-judgment right to attorney’s fees because the jury did not award punitive damages, and neither a statutory nor a contractual provision authorizes such fees. The original Court of Appeals opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO70007.pdf . | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Robert Michael Fulton |
O. STEPHEN MONTAGNET, III
W. THOMAS MCCRANEY, III |
||
| Appellee: | Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company | MICHAEL WAYNE BAXTER WALKER REECE GIBSON |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Insurance - M.R.C.P. 59(e) - Post-judgment motion - Attorney's fees - Extracontractual damages |
| Summary of the Facts: | After Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. delayed payment of Robert Fulton’s uninsured-motorist benefits, Fulton sued Farm Bureau. The jury found Farm Bureau negligent for failing to timely investigate and pay Fulton’s claim and awarded Fulton $10,000 in extracontractual damages. The jury awarded no punitive damages. Fulton filed a post-judgment motion to amend, seeking $120,773 in attorney’s fees and expenses. The court denied the motion. Fulton appealed, and the Court of Appeals held that because attorney’s fees are “collateral” to the final judgment and outside the scope of M.R.C.P. 59(e), the trial court should at least have considered awarding them. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | .R.C.P. 59(e) allows a party to file a motion to amend or alter a judgment. In order to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion, the movant must show an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence not previously available, or need to correct a clear error of law to prevent manifest injustice. In his post-judgment motion, Fulton sought attorney’s fees. In considering Fulton’s motion under Rule 59(e), the trial judge recognized that Fulton was essentially seeking additional “extracontractual” damages. However, Fulton argues that attorney’s fees are a collateral matter outside the scope of Rule 59(e). Although circumstances may exist in which attorney’s fees would be collateral, this is not one of those circumstances. Without an independent right to attorney’s fees, a post-judgment motion to amend for attorney’s fees falls under Rule 59(e). Without statutory authority or contractual provision, attorneys’ fees cannot be awarded unless punitive damages are proper. There is no Mississippi statute which authorizes attorney’s fees in this case. And attorney’s fees were not authorized under the contract between Fulton and Farm Bureau. Thus, since the jury did not award punitive damages, Fulton had no post-judgment right to attorney’s fees. Fulton argues that because Farm Bureau did not appeal the extracontractual damages, it is an independent basis for an award of attorney’s fees. However, in the insurance context, “extracontractual damages” are not punitive damages in the traditional sense. They are awarded when punitive damages are not, and are intended to cover reasonably foreseeable costs and expenses, such as attorney’s fees. Fulton could have appealed the award of extracontractual damages but did not and cannot now complain. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
