USF&G Ins. Co. of Miss. V. Walls
| Docket Number: | 2002-IA-00185-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-IA-00185-SCT ; 2002-IA-00185-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 06-09-2005 Holding: The prior opinion is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor. Reversed and Remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Equitable class action - Section 11-53-37 - M.R.C.P. 23 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concurs in Result Only: Easley, J. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-16-2000 Appealed from: Panola County Chancery Court Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Case Number: B-99-07-272 |
|
| Note: | Appellees' Motion to Amend, Correct or Clarify Order, Opinion or Mandate is granted. Link inactive. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | USF&G Insurance Company of Mississippi |
|||
| Appellee: | George K. Walls and Roxie Ann Wells |
|
||
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 - Equitable class action - Section 11-53-37 - M.R.C.P. 23 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Appellees’ Motion to Amend, Correct or Clarify Order, Opinion or Mandate is granted, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Roxie Wells and George Walls were in a car wreck. Roxie sued George, whose insurer was USF&G Insurance Company of Mississippi. USF&G paid Roxie $22,632.50 for the loss of her 1995 Chrysler Concorde. This claim was paid before any personal injury claim of Roxie was examined. Roxie attempted to recover from USF&G for her injuries but was informed that George’s policy had a single limit coverage of only $25,000 per accident–or just a little over two thousand dollars coverage left for that one accident. Roxie argued that the coverage was deficient under Mississippi statutory levels, and George agreed with her. Roxie dismissed her complaint against George, and together the two filed suit in chancery court against USF&G on behalf of a clearly ascertainable class of others similarly situated. This “class” allegedly consisted of USF&G insureds and those who were injured by USF&G insureds. USF&G moved to dismiss, but the court denied the motion and certified the plaintiff class. The Supreme Court granted USF&G’s petition for interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Section 11-53-37 explains how attorney’s fees would be awarded in class actions in chancery. The only issue it directly addresses is the awarding of attorney fees if there was an equitable class action. This statute is simply a relic from the time when class actions at equity were permitted in chancery court. It serves no function at this moment in time because there are no class actions under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, whether in circuit or chancery court. There is no direct conflict between the omission of M.R.C.P. 23 and the Mississippi Code because section 11-53-37 only provides for attorney’s fees if there is a class action. Since there is no rule or statute which expressly or impliedly provides for class actions, they are not permitted in any legal proceedings in our state courts. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
