Horace Mann Life Ins. Co., et al. v. Nunaley
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00250-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-19-2007 Opinion Author: CARLSON, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Fraud - Negligent misrepresentation - Compensatory damages Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, DICKINSON AND LAMAR, JJ. Dissenting Author : Diaz, P.J., and Graves, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Randolph, J. Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-29-2005 Appealed from: Humphreys County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: Jury verdict finding Appellant liable & awarding Appellee damages Case Number: 2004-0024 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | HORACE MANN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
AND LEO HAWKINS, JR. |
SAMUEL ERNEST LINTON ANDERSON
ARTHUR F. JERNIGAN |
||
| Appellee: | BETTY NUNALEY | T. JACKSON LYONS PRECIOUS TYRONE MARTIN, SR. |
|
|
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 - Fraud - Negligent misrepresentation - Compensatory damages |
| Summary of the Facts: | Betty Nunaley sued Horace Mann Life Insurance Company and Leo Hawkins, Jr., concerning the sale of an insurance policy. The jury found that Horace Mann and Hawkins had engaged in fraud and negligent misrepresentation and awarded Betty Nunaley $35,000 in compensatory damages and $1,935,000 in punitive damages. Horace Mann and Hawkins appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Fraud Horace Mann and Hawkins argue that the same policy language as that in Nunaley’s policy has been held to be clear and unambiguous by the Mississippi Court of Appeals. The case of Watts v. Horace Mann Life Ins. Co., 949 So. 2d 833 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006), is strikingly similar to the current case. As the Court of Appeals held regarding the policy at issue in that case, the language of Nunaley’s policy was clear and unambiguous. Since the language of the policy does not support a claim for fraud, this issue, as asserted by Horace Mann, has merit. Issue 2: Compensatory damages Horace Mann argues that a plaintiff cannot recover compensatory damages in an amount exceeding the loss she actually incurred. In order to prove a claim for negligent misrepresentation, Nunaley must prove a misrepresentation or omission of a fact, that the representation or omission is material or significant, that the person/entity charged with the negligence failed to exercise that degree of diligence and expertise the public is entitled to expect of such persons/entities, that the plaintiff reasonably relied upon the misrepresentation or omission, and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of such reasonable reliance. Nunaley unquestionably fails to prove that she suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of such reasonable reliance on any perceived negligent misrepresentation which Hawkins/Horace Mann made to her. Nunaley, to this day, has in effect a policy that will pay $110,295 in the event of the death of one of her children and she has made no claim on her insurance policy because, thankfully, neither of her children have died. Since Nunaley has suffered no compensatory damages, it necessarily follows that she is not entitled to an award of punitive damages. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
