State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., et al. v. Murriel, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-IA-00745-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-M-00745 |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-04-2004 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Joinder - M.R.C.P. 20(a) - Forum non conveniens Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-25-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: Denied defendants' denied defendants' motions to sever and dismiss. Case Number: 251-02-437CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al. |
W. SCOTT WELCH, III
LEANN MERCER
CAMILLE HENICK EVANS |
||
| Appellee: | Willie G. Murriel, Individually and Murriel's Auto Body & Paint Shop, Inc., et al. | BRIAN K. HERRINGTON ANTHONY RENARD SIMON S. ROBERT HAMMOND, JR. CHARLES BARRETT THOMAS P. THRASH PHILIP E. CARBY |
|
|
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 - Joinder - M.R.C.P. 20(a) - Forum non conveniens |
| Summary of the Facts: | Twelve individual plaintiffs filed suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and two of its agents, Dan Bell and Godwin Dafe, alleging that State Farm illegally steered plaintiffs' existing and prospective customers away from plaintiffs' vehicle repair businesses and instituted a retaliatory campaign to harass, disparage and professionally discredit plaintiffs through false and malicious representations regarding the quality of work performed by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged that the Circuit Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County had jurisdiction over the subject matter because the cause of action occurred and accrued in Hinds County. The defendants alleged improper joinder under M.R.C.P. 20(a), and filed a motion to sever improperly joined plaintiffs and to dismiss out of state plaintiffs on forum non conveniens grounds. The judge denied defendants' motion, and the Supreme Court granted permission for the defendants to bring an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Joinder The defendants argue that each plaintiff's claim for damages from defendants' alleged actions of steering away customers arises from separate, highly fact-specific circumstances that must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. In order to join individual causes of actions, both requirements of Rule 20(a) must be satisfied, i.e., different plaintiffs' causes of action must arise out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences, and there must be questions of law or fact common to all of the plaintiffs. In this case, the plaintiffs' businesses are located in seven different Mississippi counties and three other states. Plaintiffs dealt with different State Farm agents or employees. Each plaintiff has a different customer base, different existing customers and different prospective customers. Local marketing areas, local economic factors, prevailing competitive factors, local estimating practices, and parts availability are different for each plaintiff. The damages allegedly incurred by each plaintiff necessarily arose in a different time period, even though some overlapping may have occurred. There is no distinct litigable event linking the parties. Therefore, joinder is not proper under Rule 20(a). Issue 2: Forum non conveniens To determine if application of the forum non conveniens doctrine is appropriate, the court must consider relative ease and access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for obtaining attendance of unwilling witnesses; possibility of a view of the premises (if appropriate); whether the plaintiff chose an inconvenient forum in Mississippi to vex, harass or oppress the defendant; the burden on Mississippi courts in entertaining the suit; and the local interest in deciding localized controversies at home. The four out-of-state plaintiffs should be dismissed. Otherwise, defendants will be forced to travel to California, Georgia and Alabama for discovery, and the cost of this travel will increase the already high cost of litigation. Out-of-state witnesses are beyond the jurisdiction of the state courts and cannot be compelled to testify. In addition, our state has absolutely no local interest in trying the out-of-state plaintiffs' claims. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
