Bullock v. AIU Ins. Co.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-FC-01859-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2007-FC-01859-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-04-2008
Opinion Author: Waller, P.J.
Holding: The motion for rehearing filed by appellees is denied. The original opinions are withdrawn and these opinions are substituted therefor. Certified Question Answered.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Breach of contract - M.R.A.P. 20 - Statute of limitations - Accrual of action - Order by administration law judge - Section 71-3-47 - Section 71-3-3
Judge(s) Concurring: Diaz, P.J., Easley, Graves, Randolph and Lamar, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Carlson, J., with separate written opinion.
Dissent Joined By : Smith, C.J., and Dickinson, J.
Procedural History: Motion for Rehearing
Nature of the Case: Motion for Rehearing; CIVIL - FEDERALLY CERTIFIED QUESTION

Note: The motion for rehearing was filed on 5/22/2008.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Jimmy Bullock




LANCE L. STEVENS



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: AIU Insurance Company, The Gottfried Corporation and AIG Claim Services, Inc. REBECCA B. COWAN; EDWARD J. CURRIE, JR.; WILLIAM E. McKINLEY, JR.  
    Motion for Attorneys' Fees:
  • Motion

  • 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: Breach of contract - M.R.A.P. 20 - Statute of limitations - Accrual of action - Order by administration law judge - Section 71-3-47 - Section 71-3-3

    Summary of the Facts: The motion for rehearing is denied, and these opinions are substituted for the original opinions. Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 20, this matter is before the Court as a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court is asked to determine when a decision from an administrative law judge of the Workers’ Compensation Commission becomes final for purposes of determining when the statute of limitations begins to run for bringing a tortious breach-of-contract action against an employer, a workers’ compensation insurance carrier, and a third-party claims administrator. The district court concluded that the applicable statute of limitations barred Jimmy Bullock’s suit alleging bad faith in the denial of his workers’ compensation benefits and dismissed with prejudice all of his claims against all defendants.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: At issue is whether Bullock’s bad-faith cause of action accrued in 1999 when the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission administrative law judge issued an order declaring Bullock’s injury compensable, or instead, in 2003, when the administrative law judge issued his final order, which was not appealed to the full commission. The October 1999 ruling by the administrative law judge was not a final order from which the statute of limitations period began to run for Bullock to file a complaint against the defendants for bad-faith refusal to provide workers’ compensation benefits. Section 71-3-47 provides that it is the decision to “make or deny an award” which becomes final if a petition for review is not sought within twenty days. Although the term “award” is not defined under Mississippi’s workers’ compensation law, it is used throughout section 71-3-3 and is associated with the grant of a monetary sum. An “award” refers to a final decision to grant or deny a specific amount of compensation. Thus, under Section 71-3-47, it is a decision making or denying compensation, not a determination of liability or entitlement alone, which constitutes an “award.” Because no “award” was made or denied by the October 1999 order, it did not constitute a final order from which the statute of limitations began to run on Bullock’s bad-faith claim. The October 1999 order indicates that a final determination on the amount of compensation due Bullock remained pending before the administrative law judge. The issue of liability or compensability was simply the threshold issue, with a determination of the amount reserved for a later ruling. While the defendants voluntarily began paying benefits after the October 1999 order, a final decision on the amount owed to Bullock had not been reached and the October 1999 order was interlocutory.


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