PDN, Inc. v. Loring


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-CA-01397-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-24-2003
Opinion Author: Diaz, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Tortious interference with business relations - Section 71-3-15(1) - Bad faith
Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Waller, Cobb, Easley, Carlson and Graves, JJ.
Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-31-2001
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: W. Swan Yerger
Disposition: The trial court granted Loring's motion for summary judgment.
Case Number: 251-99-157-CIV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: PDN, INC.




G. TODD BURWELL KRISTEN A. HORTON



 

Appellee: IVORY LORING STEPHANIE M. RIPPEE ROBERT A. MILLER  

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: Tortious interference with business relations - Section 71-3-15(1) - Bad faith

Summary of the Facts: PDN, Inc. filed a suit against National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, AIG Claim Services, Inc., and Ivory Loring alleging that, as an adjuster for a workers' compensation insurance carrier, Loring tortiously interfered with PDN's business relations, because Loring refused to approve PDN's services and fees as a nursing home and physical therapy provider for two injured employees. PDN's suit included claims for tortious interference, bad faith, breach of contract and/or bad faith refusal to pay benefits. The court granted Loring's motion for summary judgment as to the tortious interference, bad faith, and breach of contract claims. The court certified its judgment as final under M.R.C.P. 54(b), and PDN appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Tortious interference with business relations A claim for tortious interference with business relations requires proof that the acts were intentional and willful, the acts were calculated to cause damage to the plaintiffs in their lawful business, the acts were done with the unlawful purpose of causing damage and loss without right or justifiable cause on the part of the defendant, and actual loss and damage resulted. PDN argues that because the injured employee and his physician have the right to choose his medical care provider under section 71-3-15(1), Loring has no authority or right to require that the injured employee be treated by anyone other than PDN since that is where his doctor referred him. Section 71-3-15(1) provides that the employee has the right to chose one competent physician and such other specialist to whom he is referred by his physician. PDN's argument that AIG, and its employee, Loring, cannot choose which home nursing services provider to pay for is without merit. The language in section 71-3-15 does not provide that the injured employee has the right to choose his nurse or therapist, unless that nurse or therapist was specifically chosen by a doctor who remained to administer care to the injured employee. Here, the doctor did not remain to administer care to the patient but merely referred him to a home health care provider. Issue 2: Bad faith PDN argues that Loring's failure or refusal to interview adjusters who worked on the file of the injured employee to discover the existence of an oral contract and her failure to interview the PDN employee who negotiated the injured employee's contract constitutes a bad faith breach of contract and/or a bad faith refusal to pay benefits. An agent acting on behalf of his employer is not personally liable for breaching his employer's contracts. Because Loring is merely an employee of AIG, she should not be held personally accountable on the oral contract.


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