Poindexter v. Southern United Fire Ins.
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01512-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-27-2003 Opinion Author: Cobb, J. Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED & REMANDED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Joinder of insurance company - M.R.C.P. 57(b)(2) - Amendment of complaint - M.R.C.P. 15(a) - Compelling discovery Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Waller and Carlson, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Waller, J., Concurs with Separate Written Opinion Joined by Smith, P.J., and Carlson, J. Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J. Dissent Joined By : Diaz, J. Easley, J., Joins in Part. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Easley and Graves, JJ., Concur in Part and Dissent in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-27-2001 Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: Granted dismissal of suit. Case Number: 2001-0040-CVl |
|
| Note: | PITTMAN, C.J., WALLER AND CARLSON, JJ., CONCUR. EASLEY AND GRAVES, JJ., CONCUR IN PART AND DISSENT IN PART WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. WALLER, J., CONCURS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY SMITH, P.J., AND CARLSON, J. McRAE, P.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY DIAZ, J. EASLEY, J., JOINS IN PART. DIAZ, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY McRAE, P.J., EASLEY AND GRAVES, JJ. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Leo Poindexter |
GARY L. GEESLIN |
||
| Appellee: | Southern United Fire Insurance Company COMPANY | THOMAS L. SEGREST |
|
|
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: | Personal injury - Joinder of insurance company - M.R.C.P. 57(b)(2) - Amendment of complaint - M.R.C.P. 15(a) - Compelling discovery |
| Summary of the Facts: | Leo Poindexter’s pickup truck was damaged in a collision with a vehicle driven by Elby Fields. Fields was insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by Southern United Fire Insurance Company. Poindexter filed suit against Fields and Southern United seeking to recover compensatory damages and punitive damages. The same attorney filed an answer for Fields and a separate answer for Southern United which sought dismissal. The court granted the dismissal, and Poindexter appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Dismissal Poindexter argues that because Southern United has taken the position that it is not responsible for loss of use, towing or storage costs, it has denied its claim against Fields and Poindexter is therefore permitted to join Southern United as a defendant. M.R.C.P. 57(b)(2) allows an injured party to seek a declaratory judgment establishing coverage, where the insurance company has indicated it may deny coverage of the claim. While Rule 57 permits an injured party to seek a declaratory judgment of coverage, it does not permit an injured party to join an insurance company that has admitted coverage. Southern United has never disputed coverage, and the extent of the coverage is an issue that must first be resolved by the trial court in Poindexter’s action against Fields. Issue 2: Amendment of complaint In his complaint, Poindexter sought relief from Southern United on account of its alleged “bad faith” refusal to settle his claim against Fields. In his first amended complaint, Poindexter attempted to add the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and he argues that the amended complaint cures the lack of privity problem from which his bad faith claim suffers. The court denied his motion for leave to amend on the basis that allowing the amendment would be futile, and Poindexter argues that the ruling was in direct conflict with the mandatory language M.R.C.P. 12(b) and 15(a). M.R.C.P. 15(a) provides that thirty days leave to amend shall be granted when the court sustains a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The word “shall” means “shall,” not “shall sometimes.” Because leave to amend was mandatory, the court erred in determining that it had discretion to evaluate the futility vel non of the amended complaint. Issue 3: Compel discovery Poindexter argues that because the court erred in granting Southern United’s motion to dismiss and denying his motion for leave to amend, it also erred in holding his motion to compel discovery moot. On remand, the court should reconsider Poindexter’s motion on the merits. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
