Miss. Farm Bureau Fed'n, et al. v. Roberts, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-IA-02016-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2004-M-02016-SCT ; 2004-IA-02016-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-02-2006
Opinion Author: Waller, P.J.
Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Joinder - M.R.C.P. 20(a) - Venue - Motion to dismiss
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Dissenting Author : Easley and Graves, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-05-2004
Appealed from: Claiborne County Circuit Court
Judge: Isadore Patrick
Disposition: Denied Appellant's Motion to Sever
Case Number: CV-99-0165

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, CLAIBORNE COUNTY FARM BUREAU, RANKIN COUNTY FARM BUREAU, AMITE COUNTY FARM BUREAU, LAUDERDALE COUNTY FARM BUREAU, RURAL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, MARCUS MARTIN, DAN MARTIN, MICHAEL BRIDWELL, RANDY HYNUM AND TOMMY ALLEN




AMY K. ELDER, SAM E. SCOTT, DALE G. RUSSELL, CHARLES G. COPELAND, KEN R. ADCOCK, G. MICHAEL WARREN



 

Appellee: BRENDA ROBERTS, BARBARA RIGDON, MARTHA VIA, BECKY KIRKLAND AND ALINDA WHITE MARK T. McLEOD, MITCHELL H. TYNER, GENEVIEVE G. McLEOD  

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: Contract - Joinder - M.R.C.P. 20(a) - Venue - Motion to dismiss

Summary of the Facts: Five plaintiffs, Brenda Roberts, a resident of Claiborne County; Barbara Rigdon, a resident of Lauderdale County; Martha Via, a resident of Rankin County; Becky Kirkland, a resident of Amite County; and Alinda White, a resident of Amite County, alleged that each of them entered into contracts with some of the defendants, appointing them as independent agents for the purpose of selling insurance. They alleged that, even though they were good producers for the various companies, they were prevented from expanding their businesses, as promised, subjected to unfair treatment because they were women, and experienced undue pressure, harassment, discrimination, misdeeds and interference. The circuit court denied the defendants’ motion to sever, and the defendants requested permission to file an interlocutory appeal which the Supreme Court granted.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Joinder Before an alleged “transaction or occurrence” will pass muster under M.R.C.P. 20(a), an appellate court must find a distinct litigable event linking the parties. Another important consideration in deciding if joinder is appropriate is whether the proof presented to the jury would be confusing due to the multiplicity of the facts. The defendants argue that joinder is improper in this case because each plaintiff entered into a separate contract with different insurance companies selling different types of insurance; the contracts were entered into at different times; the contracts were entered into in different counties (except for White and Kirkland, residents of Amite County who both entered into their separate contracts in Amite County); each plaintiff worked for a different manager (with the exception noted above); each plaintiff alleges a different set of facts; each plaintiff would require different witnesses to prove her case; and the circumstances underlying each plaintiff’s resignation are separate and distinct. The plaintiffs all allege breach of contract, negligent and intentional torts, conspiracy, and fraud; however, they worked under different supervisors in different locations, and were subject to several different alleged circumstances at different times. Inasmuch as proof of the fraud and conspiracy claims alone would require intricate factual narratives and multiple witnesses, the amount of evidence that would have to be introduced to prove all the claims in one trial would certainly overwhelm a jury. It is important to note that no plaintiff has claims against every defendant. The only alleged distinct litigable events which could tie together the plaintiffs claims against the defendants are the fraud and conspiracy claims. The complaint, however, does not state any specific facts to support such claims. To meet the above standards, there should be a showing that all of the plaintiffs’ managers had a common plan in place prior to the hiring of the plaintiffs to induce the plaintiffs to work hard and sell insurance policies with recurring premiums and then force the plaintiffs to resign so the managers could receive the percentage of the recurring premiums. The circuit court erred in denying the defendants’ motion to sever because the plaintiffs cannot show a distinct litigable event; and because all the actions complained of occurred (except for the two Amite County plaintiffs) in separate counties, in separate offices and were performed by different and separate actors. Issue 2: Venue The plaintiffs argue that the defendants have waived their claim for change of venue because they did not raise this issue in the circuit court. The record shows that all of the defendants’ answers to the complaint contained motions to change venue. Some of the defendants also filed a separate “motion to sever and transfer venue” in which the other defendants joined. For reasons not due to any action or non-action of the defendants, the circuit court did not rule upon it. Thus, the defendants did not waive their motion for change of venue. Issue 3: Dismissal The defendants argue the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation, the Claiborne County Farm Bureau, the Rankin County Farm Bureau, the Amite County Farm Bureau, and the Lauderdale County Farm Bureau should be dismissed because this action is based on allegations of breach of contract and these entities did not enter into any contracts with the plaintiffs and are not in the business of selling insurance. The motion to dismiss is more appropriate for consideration by the trial court. The complaint shows that, even though there is a cause of action for breach of contract, there are also causes of action for fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. And, even though the complaint does not state any specific facts against these defendants, plaintiffs do state specific facts against these defendants in their briefs.


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