Ferguson v. Snell, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00809-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-16-2004 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Admission of computer-generated documents - M.R.E. 803(6) - JNOV Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Easley, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concurs in Result Only: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., and Randolph, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-13-2002 Appealed from: Copiah County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: The jury returned a verdict for Snell and GuideOne; however, it found that the GuideOne policy contained language unauthorized by Mississippi law and awarded Ferguson $25,000.00 and $1,000,000.00 in damages. Case Number: 99-0511 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Teresa Ferguson, Individually and on Behalf of Rusty Ferguson, a Minor |
MICHAEL S. ALLRED
KATHLEEN H. EILER |
||
| Appellee: | Teresa Ferguson, Individually and on Bobby Snell and GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company | WILLIAM W. McKINLEY, JR. PHILLIP W. GAINES TIMOTHY D. MOORE WADE G. MANOR KENNETH TREY O’CAIN BRIAN DOUGLAS MAYO |
|
|
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 - Admission of computer-generated documents - M.R.E. 803(6) - JNOV |
| Summary of the Facts: | As the vehicles of Teresa Ferguson and Bobby Snell passed each other, two tires spun off Snell’s cattle trailer, one of which hit Ferguson=s car. Ferguson filed suit contending that Snell was negligent in maintaining the wheels on the trailer, that the wheels on the cattle trailer were not sufficiently tightened, that the center holes of the tires were “wallowed out,” and that Snell had actual knowledge of the condition of the tires but failed to keep them adequately inflated. The jury found that Snell acted with reasonable care under the circumstances and did not cause or contribute to the alleged injuries of Ferguson. At the time of the accident, Snell had insurance coverage with liability limits of $25,000 for medical injuries. Ferguson=s vehicle was insured with GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company, and after the accident, she filed a claim for underinsured motorist benefits in the event that her damages were greater than the amount covered by Snell=s liability insurance. After GuideOne reviewed Snell=s insurance policy, it determined that he was not underinsured. Ferguson then filed a claim against GuideOne alleging bad faith denial of her claim, stating that she had two vehicles insured by her GuideOne policy with uninsured/underinsured coverage. The jury found that Snell had not been negligent and that Ferguson had uninsured motorist liability in the amount of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident and that the coverage applied only to one vehicle. The jury also specifically found that GuideOne was not liable for bad faith or for the breach of any implied covenants or express contracts. However, the jury did find that GuideOne had included language in its insurance policy which was unauthorized by Mississippi law, although such an action did not amount to fraud. The jury awarded Ferguson $25,000 in actual, extracontractual damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. GuideOne filed a motion seeking a j.n.o.v. The court granted the motion and entered judgment for GuideOne. Ferguson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of computer-generated documents The evidence offered by GuideOne in support of its assertion that only one vehicle was insured under the policy was made in the form of previously “purged” computer generated documents which were admitted under the business records exception of M.R.E. 803(6). Ferguson argues that the documents showing that only one car was insured by GuideOne failed to meet the business records exception, because the document was not prepared at or near the relevant dates of the policy period for which it purports to provide a record, the sponsoring witness did not have personal knowledge of the matter, and the documents were not kept in the course of regularly conducted business. Under Rule 803(6), the focus is properly placed on the time period when the documents were created, the trustworthiness of the documents, and whether their creation was in the regular course of business. These documents were created in the regular course of business by an employee of GuideOne, although the sponsoring witness was not the exact employee that entered the data into the computer system. This witness was an employee of GuideOne with the knowledge of the contents of the computer-generated document, its preparation, and how to access the documents from storage on her computer. Her knowledge fully conforms to the requirements of the Rules of Evidence. Issue 2: JNOV Ferguson argues that the court erred in granting the motion for JNOV. The jury was presented with all of the facts pertaining to the case, and it found sufficient evidence to exonerate Snell of all negligence. While reasonable and fairminded jurors may have reached a different conclusion, there was sufficient evidence introduced at trial to reasonably conclude that Snell was not negligent. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
