Fulton v. Miss. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01529-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CT-01529-SCT2009-CT-01529-SCT2009-CA-01529-COA2009-CT-01529-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-05-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Motion for award of attorney's fees - M.R.C.P. 59(e) - Collateral matter Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : Barnes, J., joins this opinion in part Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-17-2009 Appealed from: Yazoo County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: Denied Plaintiff's Post-Trial Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs as Untimely Filed Case Number: 2008-CI02 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Robert Michael Fulton |
O. STEPHEN MONTAGNET III, W. THOMAS MCCRANEY III |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company | MICHAEL WAYNE BAXTER, WALKER REECE GIBSON | ||
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: | Motion for award of attorney's fees - M.R.C.P. 59(e) - Collateral matter |
| Summary of the Facts: | Robert Fulton was injured when he was struck by an automobile driven by Lofton Pigg Jr. Fulton and Pigg were at the Little Yazoo Dirt Race Track. Pigg lost control of his automobile as he drove through the spectator section. Pigg was intoxicated at the time of the accident and had no automobile insurance. Fulton submitted a claim for uninsured-motorist benefits to his automobile-insurance carrier, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company. Farm Bureau did not immediately pay the benefits. After Fulton filed a complaint against Farm Bureau, Farm Bureau paid Fulton $25,502.50 of his $50,500 in total available uninsured-motorist benefits. Fulton asserted claims against Farm Bureau for breach of contractual duty to pay insurance proceeds; gross negligence in breaching a duty to investigate, process, and pay Fulton’s claim; and bad-faith refusal to pay on the grounds that Farm Bureau had no arguable justifiable basis to delay payment. Farm Bureau filed a third-party complaint against Pigg. After a trial, the jury found Pigg at fault for the collision and found no fault on the part of the race track. The circuit judge entered a final judgment, agreed as to form by the attorneys, that the jury verdict: awarded Fulton compensatory damages in the amount of $24,497.50, which was the remainder of his uninsured-motorist-policy limit; awarded Fulton extra-contractual damages in the amount of $10,000 for Farm Bureau's negligence in failing to investigate and pay Fulton's claim in a timely manner; and found in favor of Farm Bureau on the claim for bad faith and punitive damages. Fulton filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees, expenses, costs, and prejudgment interest, asking the circuit court to award Fulton $120,773 in attorney’s fees and expenses. The court denied the motion, and Fulton appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Fulton argues that the circuit court’s ruling was in direct conflict with supreme court precedent. Motions for reassessment of costs or for attorney’s fees lie outside M.R.C.P. 59(e), because they are ‘collateral’ and do not seek a change in the judgment but merely what is due because of the judgment. Regardless of when attorney's fees are requested, the court's decision of entitlement to fees will therefore require an inquiry separate from the decision on the merits – an inquiry that cannot even commence until one party has prevailed. The fact that a fee request was made after the entry of judgment is not a proper basis for denying the fee award. The jury’s verdict of $10,000 for extra-contractual damages is not subject to consideration in this appeal. The question presented is whether attorney’s fees are to be submitted to the jury to determine as an element of damages to be awarded or to the court as a collateral or derivative matter. The issue of attorney’s fees is to be submitted to the court as a collateral or derivative matter. Thus, the time for such consideration is post-trial, as Fulton attempted to do here. The case is remanded for the consideration of Fulton’s motion for attorney’s fees and expenses. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
