Tyler Marine Servs., Inc. v. Aqua Yacht Harbor Corp.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00306-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-17-2006 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Negligence - Compulsory counterclaim - M.R.C.P. 13 - F.R.C.P. 13 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Roberts, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-04-2004 Appealed from: Tishomingo County Circuit Court Judge: Sharion R. Aycock Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED Case Number: 95-0090(F)(T) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | TYLER MARINE SERVICES, INC. |
HAROLD STEPHEN JACKSON |
||
| Appellee: | AQUA YACHT HARBOR CORPORATION | STEVEN CAVITT COOKSTON |
|
|
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: | Negligence - Compulsory counterclaim - M.R.C.P. 13 - F.R.C.P. 13 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tyler Marine Services, Inc. brought suit against Aqua Yacht Harbor Corporation for negligence and loss of business income stemming from a fire which destroyed buildings owned by Aqua Yacht and leased by Tyler Marine. The court granted Aqua Yacht’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Tyler Marine’s claim should have been brought as a compulsory counterclaim in an earlier lawsuit stemming from the same incident. Tyler Marine appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Tyler Marine argues, citing M.R.C.P. 13(a)(3), that, because both it and Aqua Yacht were represented by their respective insurance companies in the earlier suit, it was exempt from the requirement that it file its counterclaim in that suit. Because the earlier suit was pending in federal court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applied to Tyler Marine’s counterclaim. The claim of Aqua Yacht, the opposing party, against Tyler Marine, which concerned indemnity, stemmed from the same transaction or occurrence as Tyler Marine’s later claim in state court against Aqua Yacht. As such, Tyler Marine’s claim against Aqua Yacht should clearly have been brought as a compulsory counterclaim in the earlier suit rather than as an independent state court claim. Tyler Marine also argues that, had it brought the claims in the earlier case, the claims would have been cross-claims rather than counterclaims according to the language of M.R.C.P. 13(g). Tyler Marine’s claim fits squarely within the definition of a compulsory counterclaim set forth by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a). Tyler Marine and Aqua Yacht, though co-defendants, became “opposing parties” within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 when they filed cross-claims against one another for indemnity in the earlier suit. Once codefendants file cross-claims against one another, hence becoming opposing parties, any other claims they have against one another arising from the same transaction or occurrence which constitutes the subject matter of the cross-claims become compulsory counterclaims, unless some exception applies. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
