Poindexter v. Southern United Fire Ins. Co.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01483-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-17-2004 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Property damage - Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Discovery Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges, P.J., Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-06-2003 Appealed from: Lowndes Circuit Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN UNITED FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Case Number: 2001-0040-CV1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Leo Poindexter |
GARY L. GEESLIN |
||
| Appellee: | Southern United Fire Insurance Company | THOMAS L. SEGREST |
|
|
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: | Property damage - Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Discovery |
| Summary of the Facts: | Leo Poindexter filed a complaint against Southern United Fire Insurance Company. The court dismissed his complaint with prejudice and Poindexter appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that Southern United’s refusal to recognize responsibility for storage and towing costs was not a denial of coverage, but reversed and remanded to allow Poindexter leave to amend his complaint pursuant to M.R.C.P. 15. The trial judge dismissed Poindexter’s amended complaint, and Poindexter appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Intentional infliction of emotional distress Poindexter argues that the judge erred in granting Southern United’s motion to dismiss because he had a viable claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress since Southern United used economic coercion and bullying tactics to attempt to force him into a less than favorable settlement. To recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the conduct must have been, so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Contrary to Poindexter’s assertions, Southern United had no duty to him, but only to its insured. The matter between Southern United and Poindexter is a pay dispute, and nothing more, and Southern United’s conduct was not so egregious as to shock the conscience. Issue 2: Discovery Poindexter argues that the court erred in holding that his Motion to Compel Discovery was moot. The resolution of the first issue renders this issue moot. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
