T & S Express, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-CA-00223-COA
Linked Case(s): 2001-CA-00223-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-25-2003
Opinion Author: Thomas, J.
Holding: Reversed and Rendered

Additional Case Information: Topic: Insurance - Noncontractual implied indemnity - Legal obligation
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-29-2000
Appealed from: Leflore County Circuit Court
Judge: W. Ashley Hines
Disposition: JURY FOUND IN FAVOR OF LIBERTY MUTUAL AND ORDERED T&S TO PAY FULL INDEMNITY OF $298,000.
Case Number: 96-0085

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: T & S EXPRESS, INC.




SAM STARNES THOMAS



 

Appellee: LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY R. BRITTAIN VIRDEN R. BRITTAIN VIRDEN SAMUEL TRENT FAVRE  

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 - Noncontractual implied indemnity - Legal obligation

Summary of the Facts: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company sought indemnity against T&S Express, Inc. for a personal injury claim which Liberty paid on behalf of Norton Ramsey Motor Lines, Inc., its insured. A jury found against T&S on the indemnity claim and awarded Liberty full indemnification in the amount of $298,000. T&S appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Two prerequisites of noncontractual implied indemnity in Mississippi are the damages which the claimant seeks to shift are imposed upon him as a result of some legal obligation to the injured person and it must appear that the claimant did not actively or affirmatively participate in the wrong. Liberty, under a contractual obligation, defended Norton in the suit and contended that Norton was in no way at fault. Liberty then, upon denial of summary judgment, settled the case for $298,000. Liberty has never demonstrated in any forum that it was under a legal obligation to pay the sum of $298,000, or any other amount, on behalf of its insured, Norton Ramsey. Because there is no authority holding that the mere compromise of a disputed claim is the equivalent of the payment of a legal obligation within the meaning of the law relating to common law subrogation and it does not appear that the issue of whether Liberty Mutual’s settlement payment was in satisfaction of a legal obligation of Norton Ramsey was litigated and adjudicated at the trial level, Liberty Mutual has failed, as a matter of law, to establish critical facts necessary to support its claim for subrogation asserted against T&S.


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