Capital City Ins. v. Ringgold Timber Co., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01354-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-CT-01354-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-05-2004 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Affirmer in Part, Reversed and Rendered in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Notice requirement - Prejudice - M.R.C.P. 57(b)(2) - Joint and several liability Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Irving and Myers, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J. Dissenting Author : Griffis, J. Dissent Joined By : Chandler and Barnes, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Griffis, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Chandler and Barnes, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-08-2001 Appealed from: Scott County Chancery Court Judge: Thomas L. Zebert Disposition: JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,699.50. Case Number: 96-523 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Capital City Insurance Co., Inc. |
JEFFREY STEPHEN MOFFETT
H. WESLEY WILLIAMS |
||
| Appellee: | Ringgold Timber Company, Inc. | O. MARVIN OATES ROBERT C. BOYD JAMES RANDAL WALLACE |
|
|
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 - Notice requirement - Prejudice - M.R.C.P. 57(b)(2) - Joint and several liability |
| Summary of the Facts: | Billy and Barbara Jo Walker authorized Ringgold Timber Company, Inc. to cut trees located on their property. However, the land in question was actually owned by John Boutwell. Boutwell advised Ringgold that the particular property did not belong to the Walkers and therefore Ringgold should cease from operations. At the time of the incident, Ringgold was insured by Capital City Insurance Company, Inc. Boutwell filed a complaint against the Walkers and "John Doe" Timber Company for the loss of his trees. Ringgold filed a claim with Capital City which Capital City denied. Boutwell then filed a direct action for declaratory judgment against Capital City asking the chancellor to determine the issue of insurance coverage as well as the underlying claim for the timber overcut. The chancellor found the Walkers, Ringgold, and Capital City jointly and severally liable to the Boutwells in the amount of $48,699.50. Capital City eventually paid the full amount of the judgment but now appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Notice requirement In denying coverage to Ringgold, Capital City stated that failure to provide notice of the claim violated the terms of Ringgold's policy. Capital City argues that the chancellor erred in finding that the notice requirement in the insurance policy with Ringgold was not a condition precedent to coverage. Insurers who wish to make notice a condition precedent must do so clearly. The notice provision in the insurance contract at issue makes no mention of the contract being void if late notice is received. A contract that is conditioned to become void on a specified event is one subject to a condition subsequent. Since the coverage can be defeated by a later lack of notice, the notice provision is a condition subsequent. As the notice provision is a condition subsequent, Capital City must show prejudice in order to deny Ringgold's coverage. Issue 2: Prejudice Capital City argues that the chancellor erred in finding that Capital City had suffered no prejudice as a result of Ringgold's delay in providing notice of the incident. Capital City contends that it was impossible for it to obtain a stump count in order to determine the amount of timber removed from Boutwell's property due to the passing of time. However, Capital City's forester indicated that a stump count could have been performed, just at a higher cost. Capital City also argues that it was prejudiced in the legal proceedings. However, Capital City participated in discovery, attended depositions, and participated in settlement negotiations. Therefore, the chancellor was not manifestly wrong in finding that Capital City did not suffer substantial prejudice. Issue 3: Joint and several liability Capital City argues that the chancellor erred in finding it jointly and severally liable as no party had alleged a tort committed by it. M.R.C.P. 57(b)(2) states that where an insurer has denied or indicated that it may deny that a contract covers a party's claim against an insured, that party may seek a declaratory judgment construing the contract to cover the claim. Because the chancellor was limited in determining whether there was coverage between Capital City and Ringgold, the chancellor abused his discretion in finding Capital City jointly and severally liable for the damages to Boutwell. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
