Union Nat'l Life Ins. Co., et al. v. Crosby, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-IA-01751-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-IA-01751-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-12-2004 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Subject matter jurisdiction Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Cobb, Carlson, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-07-2002 Appealed from: Covington County Chancery Court Judge: J. Larry Buffington Disposition: Denied Union National's motion to transfer to circuit court. Case Number: 01-363 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Union National Life Insurance Company; United Insurance Company of America; Union National Fire Insurance Company; Roland Stewart; Eugene Thomas ("Pete") Furline; and Charles Stewart |
SAMUEL ERNEST LINTON ANDERSON
ARTHUR F. JERNIGAN
STACI BOZANT O'NEAL
WILLIAM C. BRABEC
CHARLES E. GRIFFIN
JOHN M. DEAKLE
R. CHRISTOPHER WOOD |
||
| Appellee: | Jacqueline Crosby; Pearlie Hendricks; David Hendricks, Jr.; Calvin Lawrence; Johnnie M. Owens; Kandice Owens; Minnie Owens; Mary Turner; and Shannon S. Wallace | SUBRINA LATREACE COOPER JANET L. SIMS GUTHRIE T. ABBOTT JOHN MICHAEL SIMS CRYMES G. PITTMAN |
|
|
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: | Contract - Subject matter jurisdiction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jacqueline Crosby and over 350 other plaintiffs filed suit against Union National Life Insurance Company, United Insurance Company of American, Union National Fire Insurance Company, and their agents Roland Stewart, Eugene Thomas Furline, and Charles Stewart, from whom they had purchased fire, life and/or accident health insurance policies. The suit was filed in the Covington County Chancery Court, and the chancellor denied Union National's motion to transfer to circuit court. Union National appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Crosby raises claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, tortious breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, assumpsit, unjust enrichment, negligence, gross negligence, multiple violations of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act, and conversion, and requests relief in the forms of constructive trust, accounting, injunctive relief, actual damages and punitive damages. Although acts of fraud may give rise to actions in equity, it is apparent that Crosby seeks a legal, rather than an equitable remedy. Crosby's request for an accounting is a mere disguise for what really could be accomplished through discovery in circuit court. In addition, any issue relating to good faith and fair dealing should be heard in circuit court. Breach of contract claims also are best heard in circuit court, and a claim of breach of fiduciary duty is appropriately recognized as an action in tort, not contract. Although an action of assumpsit is based in equity, the action will lie only after consideration fails and the contract is void and unenforceable. Because the contract herein has not been voided, Crosby's claim for assumpsit is not ripe. Even though unjust enrichment and constructive trust are claims based in equity, to recover under either of these theories, Crosby must first show that the contract is void and/or that Union National breached the contract. Therefore, these claims are properly heard in circuit court. Negligence claims are tort claims and tort claims are heard in circuit court. Suit may be brought in the circuit court for violations of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act. Conversion, which requires an intent to exercise dominion or control over goods which is inconsistent with the true owner's rights, is an intentional tort a claim for which is heard in circuit court. Crosby has not shown that a circuit court cannot grant the injunctive relief she seeks. It is also apparent that Union National's right to a jury trial would be infringed upon if this case were heard in chancery court. Since Crosby's complaint sounds in tort and contract, the chancellor erred in denying Union National's motion to transfer to circuit court. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
