Richardson v. Audubon Ins. Co., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01215-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-01215-COA ; 2005-CT-01215-SCT ; 2005-CT-01215-SCT ; 2005-CT-01215-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-03-2006 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Collateral estoppel - Sanctions - Litigation Accountability Act - M.R.C.P. 11 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, AND BARNES, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): GRIFFIS, AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-02-2005 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT AWARDED TO APPELLEES Case Number: 05-CV-004 ® |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ROBERT RICHARDSON |
FELECIA PERKINS |
||
| Appellee: | AUDUBON INSURANCE COMPANY AND JOE CLAY HAMILTON, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIE MAE DUDLEY, DECEASED | JOE CLAY HAMILTON, EDWARD J. CURRIE |
|
|
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 - Collateral estoppel - Sanctions - Litigation Accountability Act - M.R.C.P. 11 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Robert Richardson filed suit against Audubon Insurance Company and Joe Hamilton, in his capacity as the administrator of the Estate of Willie Mae Dudley, alleging that Audubon wrongfully paid insurance proceeds to the Estate rather than to Richardson. Audubon and Hamilton filed separate motions for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Audubon and Hamilton, and Richardson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Collateral estoppel Richardson argues that the court erred by finding that Richardson’s action was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel precludes parties from relitigating issues that are actually litigated, determined by, and essential to the judgment in a former action, even though a different cause of action is the subject of the subsequent action. On October 3, 2003, the chancery court entered an agreed order directing that the proceeds from the claim against Audubon be paid to Hamilton in his capacity as administrator of the Estate. The order was signed by the chancellor, Hamilton, and Cobb, Richardson’s attorney. The specific issue presented in the circuit court litigation, i.e., the rightful recipient of the insurance proceeds, was resolved in chancery court. Moreover, the parties in the current case are identical to the parties in the chancery court litigation. Consequently, the court did not err in granting the motions for summary judgment. Issue 2: Sanctions The court granted Hamilton’s motion for sanctions, ordering Richardson and Perkins to pay Hamilton the sum of $4,000. Richardson argues that his complaint against Audubon and Hamilton could not be considered frivolous because Audubon had a valid contractual obligation to its insured, i.e., Richardson, and because there was no evidence of intent or willful neglect. Pursuant to the Litigation Accountability Act, as well as M.R.C.P. 11, a claim is frivolous when the claimant has no hope of success. Richardson’s claim was clearly barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. If he were dissatisfied with the October 2003 agreed order, the proper route would be to appeal, not to institute a bad faith lawsuit against the insurance company and the estate. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
