Med. Assurance Co. of Miss. V. Myers
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-01001-SCT | |
| Oral Argument: | 12-05-2006 | |
* 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). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-17-2007 Opinion Author: DICKINSON, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Transfer of venue - Section 11-11-3 - M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): GRAVES, J. Dissenting Author : DIAZ, P.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-04-2005 Appealed from: Holmes County Chancery Court Judge: Janace Harvey Goree Disposition: Ct. granted insurer's motion to transfer Case Number: 04-0198 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MEDICAL ASSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSISSIPPI |
JEFFREY RYAN BAKER
WALTER T. JOHNSON
C. R. MONTGOMERY
ROBERT M. JONES
J. COLLINS WOHNER |
||
| Appellee: | RONALD V. MYERS, SR., M.D. | H. L. MERIDETH, JR. DAVID L. MERIDETH EDWARD BLACKMON, JR. |
|
|
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 - Transfer of venue - Section 11-11-3 - M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Medical Assurance Company of Mississippi insured Dr. Ronald Myers from 1998 through 2004, but the company elected not to renew his coverage when his policy expired in 2005. One reason for MACM’s decision was Dr. Myers’ refusal to allow its Risk Management Department to conduct a full review of his practices in Tchula (Holmes County), Belzoni (Humphreys County), Greenville (Washington County), and Indianola (Sunflower County). Dr. Myers filed a complaint in the Holmes County Chancery Court, suing the company for damages and petitioning for an injunction to force it to insure him. MACM filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, moved the court to transfer the case to the Madison County Circuit Court. The chancellor ruled from the bench that Dr. Myers’ action was essentially a contract claim, so the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The chancellor concluded by stating “the Court is going to hereby transfer this case to the Circuit Court of Madison County.” The parties prepared an order consistent with this ruling. Dr. Myers filed a Motion to Reopen and Reconsider. The chancellor granted Dr. Myers’ motion to reconsider the issue of venue, found that credible evidence satisfactorily established a factual basis to support Dr. Myers’ preference of venue in Holmes County, and order that the case be transferred to the Holmes County Circuit Court. MACM filed a Petition for Permission for Interlocutory Appeal which the Supreme Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | MACM argues the chancery court erred in granting Dr. Myers’ motion to reconsider because he failed to satisfy the requirements of M.R.C.P. 60(b) for relief from an order. In his motion to reconsider, Dr. Myers asked the court to reopen the case for the admission of additional evidence and reargument and to reconsider its bench ruling transferring the case. In his brief filed two months later, Dr. Myers argued that a case handed down on January 6, 2005, Snyder v. Logan, 905 So. 2d 531 (Miss. 2005), constituted an intervening change in controlling law. This basis for reconsideration does not fit within the first five enumerated reasons for relief under 60(b). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is reserved for extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Therefore, unless extraordinary and compelling circumstances justified the transfer from the Madison County Circuit Court to the Holmes County Circuit Court, the first order transferring the case to Madison County must be enforced. Pursuant to section 11-11-3, MACM has its principal place of business in Madison County, so a substantial alleged act, omission, or injury-causing event must have occurred in Holmes County to make it a proper venue for this action. The amended version of section 11-11-3 controls the disposition of this case because the action was filed after the amendment’s effective date (venue is proper where substantial acts or events causing the injury occurred, not where the cause of action accrued). Contrary to Dr. Myers’ claims, Snyder did not represent a change in controlling venue law. Even if an act or omission did not cause the injury, it can nevertheless establish venue if it is both substantial and alleged by the plaintiff. Dr. Myers’ complaint does not allege that his decision not to give MACM’s risk management team full access to his practice, including his practice in Holmes County, contributed to his claim. Thus, that fact – even if true – does not meet the “alleged” portion of the test. Because Dr. Myers is not claiming that MACM rejected his application or decided not to renew his policy for failure to pay premiums, there is no relevance to the particular place he completed his application or mailed his premium payments. MACM never communicated to Dr. Myers from Holmes County, and all of MACM’s deliberations, meetings, correspondence, and communication with Dr. Myers occurred in or were transmitted from its offices in Madison County. Since it is MACM’s decision not to renew the insurance policy that is the alleged cause of Dr. Myers’ injuries, every substantial act, omission, or injury-causing event occurred in Madison County. Thus, Madison County was the county of proper venue under section 11-11-3, and the chancellor’s original decision to transfer the case there was correct. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
