Geske v. Williamson


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-CA-01730-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-12-2006
Opinion Author: BARNES, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Collateral source rule - Pending case
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-02-2004
Appealed from: Covington County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert G. Evans
Disposition: JURY VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
Case Number: 2001-205C

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: VIRGINIA GESKE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JERALD J. GESKE, DECEASED




LARRY O. NORRIS, JOHN D. SMALLWOOD



 

Appellee: DANNY R. WILLIAMSON LARA A. COLEMAN, DAVID A. BARFIELD  

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: Contract - Collateral source rule - Pending case

Summary of the Facts: Jerald and Virginia Geske sued Danny Williamson, a Mississippi-licensed insurance agent, United Healthcare, and Mike Barnes Trucking Company for unlawfully terminating the Geskes’s health insurance benefits and not properly replacing them. The defendants removed the case to federal court. The district judge retained the case against defendants MBTC and UHC in federal court, but remanded that part of the case dealing with Williamson. The jury found for Williamson, and Geske appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Collateral source rule Geske argues that because Williamson’s counsel introduced evidence of Jerald Geske’s mesothelioma settlement throughout the trial, the collateral source rule was violated and the judge committed reversible error in allowing this testimony. The collateral source rule applies only when the compensation received is for the same injury as the current damages being sought. In this case, the compensation at issue was for the injury of Jerald’s mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure, and not for the damages caused by the alleged unlawful termination of insurance benefits. Since this source of damages is derived from separate and distinct alleged torts, the collateral source rule is inapplicable. Further, not admitting evidence of the Geskes’s financial situation would be unfairly prejudicial to the defendant Williamson. The evidence that the Geskes had received asbestos settlement proceeds was relevant to the issue of whether the Geskes suffered emotional distress as a result of the lack of insurance coverage. Issue 2: Pending case Geske argues that the court erred in admitting testimony relating to the pending case in federal court. The Geskes’ original complaint alleges that Williamson colluded with MBTC by misrepresenting that MBTC was canceling its group policy and thus the Geskes could only obtain insurance through the Risk Pool and that Williamson conspired with MBTC to have the Geskes insured through the Risk Pool. Evidence that the Geskes were proceeding in federal court with the same claims as here would be relevant to the defense of Williamson. Allowing the jurors to think that the only recourse available to the Geskes was through the state court lawsuit would prejudice the defense.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court