Kendrick v. Miss. Farm Bureau Ins.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CA-00121-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00121-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-16-2008
Opinion Author: Barnes, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Insurance - Punitive damages
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-15-2006
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: W. Swan Yerger
Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED
Case Number: 251-04-1060

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: DEMETRY KENDRICK, LORA KENDRICK AND CURTIS KENDRICK




GRETA REGINA JOHNSON



 

Appellee: MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU INSURANCE AND DERRICK VANCE DALE GIBSON RUSSELL, ELLEN PATTON ROBB  

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 - Punitive damages

Summary of the Facts: Demetry Kendrick and Darin Hamby were involved in a car accident. Hamby was undisputably at fault in the accident. Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance and its claims adjustor, Derrick Vance, were then sued for punitive and other damages. The circuit court granted summary judgment. Demetry and her parents, Lora and Curtis Kendrick, appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: In order to recover punitive damages for bad faith from the insurer, the insured must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the insurer acted with malice, or gross negligence or reckless disregard for the rights of others. If the insurer had a legitimate or arguable reason to deny payment of the claim, then the court should refuse to grant a punitive damage instruction. The Kendricks argue that Farm Bureau or its claims adjustor had knowledge or reason to know of the uninsured motorist claim prior to October 2002. The record shows that Farm Bureau had no knowledge prior to October 2002 that an uninsured motorist claim was appropriate. Also, the Kendricks bore the responsibility to show that Farm Bureau acted with malice, or gross negligence or reckless disregard for the rights of others so as to rise to the level of an independent tort. There is nothing in the record to suggest such conduct on the part of Farm Bureau. The Kendricks filed a claim with Farm Bureau on November 1, 2001, because USAA (Hamby’s presumed insurer) was taking too long, not because the claim had been denied. The Kendricks did not request uninsured motorist coverage from Farm Bureau at that time. Until Farm Bureau had knowledge that USAA had denied coverage, it had no reason to believe that there was an uninsured motorist claim. There was no contrary evidence that Farm Bureau was aware of the denial until October 2002, approximately one year after the accident. Accordingly, as a matter of law, Farm Bureau had a legitimate or arguable reason not to pursue the uninsured motorist claim sooner.


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