Scott v. Gammons
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00470-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 03-11-2008 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-01-2008 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Release - Accord and satisfaction Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): GRIFFIS, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-26-2007 Appealed from: MARSHALL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERED IN FAVOR OF GAMMONS Case Number: M2003-406 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | WILLIAM SCOTT, PAULETTA SCOTT AND BRENDA GREENWOOD |
JOSEPH M. SPARKMAN,
M.W. ZUMMACH,
JOHN D. WATSON |
|
|
| Appellee: | TABITHA GAMMONS | JOHN BRIAN HYNEMAN | ||
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: | Personal injury - Release - Accord and satisfaction |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Scott family was involved in a two-car accident in Marshall County. The accident involved a vehicle owned and operated by William Scott. William; Pauletta Scott, William’s wife; Brenda Greenwood, William’s daughter, and Greenwood’s minor child occupied William’s vehicle. The other vehicle was owned by John Spencer and occupied by Christopher Conway and Tabitha Gammons. Whether Conway or Gammons was the driver of Spencer’s vehicle remains unclear. The Scotts’ medical bills for injuries related to the accident exceeded $230,000. Pauletta and Brenda made claims against William Scott. The Scotts brought a claim against Direct Insurance Company, the insurer of the Spencer vehicle, under the assumption that Conway was the driver of the vehicle. The Scotts also made a claim against State Farm Insurance Company, the insurer of the Scott vehicle, under their under-insured motorist coverage. The Scotts’ claims were settled through the liability policies of the vehicles. In exchange for the settlements, the Scotts executed releases with Direct and State Farm releasing them from any liability associated with the accident. Gammons filed a claim with her personal insurer, which was also State Farm. the Scotts filed a lawsuit against Gammons, alleging that she was the driver of the pickup truck, not Conway. Gammons answered the complaint admitting that she was the driver of the pickup truck. Later, the answer was amended to show that Conway was the driver of the pickup truck. Gammons then moved for summary judgment on the issues of accord and satisfaction, judicial estoppel, and equitable estoppel. The trial court denied the motion, but limited the issues to be resolved. Gammons filed a second motion for summary judgment, arguing that she should be dismissed from the action, or the case should be bifurcated on the issue of fraud. The trial court granted Gammons’s motion for summary judgment. The Scotts appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Release The Scotts argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Gammons because it was disputed whether Gammons or Conway was the driver of the pickup truck. Their position is that if Gammons is found to be the driver, then they can attempt to collect from Gammons’s insurance company as a secondary source of liability. This issue is not relevant. The releases executed by the Scotts constituted valid contracts, and the Scotts do not allege fraud or misrepresentation in the formation of the contracts. Regardless of who was driving, Direct had the duty to defend and indemnify the driver. It is clear from the language of the releases that Direct released the driver of Spencer’s vehicle – whomever that may have been. As for the State Farm releases, Gammons was released under this settlement also. Issue 2: Accord and satisfaction The releases constituted accord and satisfaction. Also, the Scotts are barred from further claims against Gammons in this case based on the theories of equitable estoppel and judicial estoppel. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
