Hogrobrooks v. Progressive Direct
| Docket Number: | 2002-CP-00663-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-04-2003 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Subject matter jurisdiction - Personal jurisdiction - Foreign corporation - Section 83-21-29 Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-12-2003 Appealed from: TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Larry O. Lewis Disposition: DISMISSED Case Number: 01-0246 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Heather Patrice Hogrobrooks |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | Progressive Direct | NICHOLAS E. BRAGORGOS |
|
|
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 - Subject matter jurisdiction - Personal jurisdiction - Foreign corporation - Section 83-21-29 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Heather Hogrobrooks, a Tennessee resident, brought suit in Tunica County against Leroy Odom, Jr. He was the driver of an automobile which allegedly collided with her vehicle in the parking lot of a Tunica County casino. She named Progressive Direct as an additional defendant, claiming that the company had in bad faith refused to pay for repairs to her vehicle. The court dismissed the suit, and Hogrobrooks appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Subject matter jurisdiction Hogrobrooks argues that the court erred in determining that since the insurance contract in issue was not to be performed in Mississippi and that the alleged bad faith refusal to provide coverage also did not occur in this state, there was no subject matter jurisdiction. The enforcement of contracts and torts connected primarily with another state are actions and causes, matters and things arising under the constitution and laws of this state. There is no subject matter jurisdiction defect in a suit brought in circuit court that alleges that damages are owed for breach of contract or for a tort, even if the parties and the contract have no connection to Mississippi. The court’s considerations in this case relating to subject matter jurisdiction properly arise only under the long-arm statute relating to personal, not subject matter, jurisdiction. Therefore, the court erred in finding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction. Issue 2: Personal jurisdiction Hogrobrooks argues that the court erred in determining that it did not have personal jurisdiction, because even though the contract at issue and the alleged tort involved a corporation that was not registered to do business in Mississippi, it is sufficient that a member of the same family was licensed to do business. Section 83-21-29 allows a foreign insurance company that has not been licensed in the state to be sued upon any cause of action arising in this state under any contract issued by the company, in a court of competent jurisdiction in any county in which the plaintiff may reside, or in which the cause of action arose. When a nonresident defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need not make a full showing on the merits that jurisdiction is proper but must make a prima facie showing of the facts upon which in personam jurisdiction is predicated to avoid dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Here, Progressive Direct's motion required Hogrobrooks to present a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. The allegations in the complaint, as supplemented by other pleadings, conceded that neither Progressive Direct nor Mountain Laurel was authorized to do business in Mississippi. There is no evidence that either Progressive Direct or Mountain Laurel carries on any activity in Mississippi. Progressive Direct and Mountain Laurel are not qualified under Mississippi law to conduct business in this state. Hogrobrooks argues that Progressive Direct does business in Mississippi, because it is a subsidiary of The Progressive Corporation of Ohio which has another subsidiary, Progressive Adjusting Company, which is listed with the Secretary of State of Mississippi. The fact that a parent company has a subsidiary which is listed with the Secretary of State is not enough to show that a different subsidiary of the same company is qualified to do business in Mississippi. If it can be established that the corporations do not recognize their separation, then the corporate veil may be pierced allowing one corporation to be subject to jurisdiction where it otherwise would not be. Here, however, there was no effort to allege or prove any factual basis for considering any other corporation to be the alter ego of Progressive Direct or of Mountain Laurel. The only connection Mississippi has to this lawsuit is that the car accident occurred in Tunica County. However, the lawsuit is not about the accident, but concerns the insurance company's subsequent refusal to enforce the repair obligation in the manner that the plaintiff argues is required. When the litigation does not arise out of any actions by the defendant purposefully directed at Mississippi, there must be evidence that the defendant's contacts with the state were of a systematic and continuous nature. There has been no evidence of any contacts by Mountain Laurel or Progressive with the State of Mississippi. For all these reasons, the court correctly held that there was no personal jurisdiction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
