USF&G Ins. Co. of Miss. V. Walls
| Docket Number: | 2002-IA-00185-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-IA-00185-SCT ; 2002-IA-00185-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-15-2005 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Class action suits at equity - M.R.C.P. 23 - Section 11-53-37 - M.R.C.P. 81 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concurs in Result Only: Easley, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-16-2000 Appealed from: Panola County Chancery Court Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: USF&G objected to the complaint and moved to dismiss, arguing that class actions could not exist under Mississippi law. Despite its objections, the chancellor denied themotion and certified the plaintiff class. Case Number: B-99-07-272 |
|
| Note: | The motion for rehearing filed by appellant is granted. The prior opinion is withdrawn, and this opinion is substituted therefor. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | USF&G Insurance Company of Mississippi |
LUTHER T. MUNFORD, FRED L. BANKS, JR., JANE E. TUCKER |
||
| Appellee: | George K. Walls and Roxie Ann Wells | RICHARD T. PHILLIPS, THOMAS ALAN WOMBLE |
|
|
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 - Class action suits at equity - M.R.C.P. 23 - Section 11-53-37 - M.R.C.P. 81 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is granted, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Roxie Ann Wells and George Walls were in a car wreck. Roxie sued George, whose insurer was USF&G Insurance Company of Mississippi. USF&G paid Roxie $22,632.50 for the loss of her vehicle. Roxie then attempted to recover from USF&G for her injuries. She was informed that George’s policy had a single limit coverage of only $25,000 per accident–or just a little over two thousand dollars coverage left for that one accident. Roxie argued that the coverage was deficient under Mississippi statutory levels, and in a novel move, George agreed with her. Roxie dismissed her complaint against George, and together the two filed suit in chancery court against USF&G not just on behalf of themselves, but also “on behalf of a clearly ascertainable class of others similarly situated.” USF&G objected to the complaint and moved to dismiss, arguing that class actions could not exist under Mississippi law. The chancellor denied the motion and certified the plaintiff class. The Supreme Court granted USF&G’s petition for interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Mississippi has never adopted M.R.C.P. 23 as a part of the rules of civil procedure. However, the comment to M.R.C.P. 23 was ambiguous. The first sentence reads: “[c]lass action practice is not being introduced into Mississippi trial courts at this time.” However, class actions were recognized in Mississippi as a matter of general equity jurisdiction long before adoption of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, so no introduction was necessary. Furthermore, section 11-53-37 provides for costs in class action suits in the chancery courts. Section 11-53-37 uses terminology—class action suits at equity—which is inconsistent with the omitted Rule 23. While M.R.C.P. 81 dictates that any inconsistency be resolved in favor of the analogous device or procedure proper under these rules, there is no analogous device, only a contradiction. Section 11-53-37 is simply a relic from the time when class actions at equity were permitted in chancery court. The only issue it directly addresses is the awarding of attorney fees if there was an equitable class action. If and when Mississippi adopts a class action rule, section 11-53-37 will become operable again, as it was decades ago. It serves no function at this moment in time because there are no class actions under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, whether in circuit or chancery court. Since there is no rule or statute which expressly or impliedly provides for class actions, they are not permitted in any legal proceedings in our state courts and the chancery court erred in concluding otherwise. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
