American Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co., et al. v. Edwards, et al.
Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00795-COA | |
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-13-2011 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Reversed, rendered and remanded |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Arbitration agreement - Accrual of cause of action Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Procedural History: Motion to Compel Arbitration Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-23-2010 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION DENIED Case Number: 251-08-846CIV |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
Appellant: | American General Life & Accident Insurance Company and Brian Muse |
RICHARD JARRAD GARNER
MICHAEL SCOTT JONES
VANESSA GRIFFITH |
|
|
Appellee: | Amanda Edwards, Dextra Davis, Hilda Johnson, Heather Davis, Brian Walden, Kimberly Taylor and Donna Smith | KENNETH TREY O’CAIN JOHN SANFORD MCDAVID DONALD A. MCGRAW JR., DANIEL STARR SPIVEY |
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 - Arbitration agreement - Accrual of cause of action |
Summary of the Facts: | Amanda Edwards, Dextra Davis, Hilda Johnson, Heather Davis, Brian Walden, Kimberly Taylor, and Donna Smith filed suit against American General Life and Accident Insurance Company and its employee Brian Muse, raising claims of fraud and misrepresentation. AGLA filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the circuit court denied. AGLA appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | AGLA argues that the circuit court erred in denying its motion to compel arbitration since the arbitration agreements that all of the Employees signed when they applied to work for and before they began work at AGLA were binding on the Employees’ claims. In his order denying AGLA’s motion to compel arbitration, the circuit judge found the Employees’ claims were not within the scope of the arbitration agreements because each of the claims arose prior to applying for employment with AGLA. It is undisputed by either party that the arbitration provisions found in both the Application and the Agreement were valid. The Employees’ contention is that they were told false and misleading information regarding salary and bonuses from Muse prior to applying for employment and beginning work with AGLA; therefore, the claims brought in the Employees’ complaint arose prior to them being bound by the arbitration agreements they had signed. The Employees argue their claims of fraud and misrepresentation occurred prior to applying for employment because Muse contacted them and convinced them to quit their current jobs with promises of certain salaries and bonuses they would receive at AGLA. Based on Muse’s salary representations, all the Employees quit their jobs, applied for jobs with AGLA, and began to work for AGLA. A cause of action ‘accrues' when it comes into existence as an enforceable claim, that is, when the right to sue becomes vested. It is not vested until all four elements of a tort claim are present. Further, in the absence of damage, no litigable event arose. In the current case, the Employees did not have an enforceable claim until they suffered damages. They could not have suffered damages until they quit their former jobs to begin work for AGLA. The Employees had signed the arbitration agreements three times before quitting their former jobs and commencing work for AGLA. They are bound by the arbitration agreement because their claims only became vested when they suffered damages which was after they had agreed to arbitrate all employment-related legal issues. Therefore, the denial of AGLA’s motion to compel is reversed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court