La. Extended Care Centers, Inc., et al. v. Miss. Ins. Guar. Ass'n
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00961-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00961-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-09-2012 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Declaratory judgment - M.R.C.P. 57(a) - Legal obligation for indemnification Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-14-2010 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: Granted summary judgment to MIGA. Case Number: CI-2005-0220-C |
|
| Note: | Motion to Withdraw as Counsel filed by Michael J. Fuller is denied. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Louisiana Extended Care Centers, Inc., Legacy Health Care Services, Inc., Magnolia Management Corporation, the Estate of Roberta Lane, By and Through Alice Hayes, Administratrix, Georgia Smith, as Conservator for Eva Montgomery, Adams Community Care Center, LLC, Legacy Health Care Services, Inc., Louisiana Extended Care Centers, Inc., Legacy Care, Inc., Magnolia Management Corporation, John Stassi, David Stallard, Elton G. Beebe, Jr. and Edward E. Crow |
MARY JANE PERRY
MICHAEL JAY FULLER, JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mississippi Insurance Guaranty Association | CLIFFORD C. WHITNEY, III R. E. PARKER, JR. PENNY B. LAWSON | ||
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 - Declaratory judgment - M.R.C.P. 57(a) - Legal obligation for indemnification |
| Summary of the Facts: | Two suits are involved in this case. The Estate of Roberta Lane filed an action in the Circuit Court of Sharkey County globally alleging negligent conduct from 1989 to 1998. In the other case, the Conservator for Eva Montgomery filed an action in the Circuit Court of Adams County globally alleging negligent conduct from June 1993 to July 2003. The cases were filed against companies that own and operate the nursing homes where Lane and Montgomery resided, nursing-home administrators, and related unnamed persons. During the periods when Lane and Montgomery resided in the nursing homes, multiple insurance policies insured the facilities, with no overlap of coverage periods in which the nursing homes were covered by more than one primary policy. One of the insurance companies, Reciprocal of America, became insolvent in 2003. The ROA policy included a liability limit for each “medical incident” in excess of the cap for the Mississippi Insurance Guaranty Association’s obligation to pay under an insolvent policy. Lane’s residency at the nursing home overlapped the coverage periods of the ROA and St. Paul policies. Montgomery’s residency bridged the ROA policy period and the coverage of all four other insurers. The complaints in the underlying cases alleged that Lane and Montgomery were injured as a result of continuous and uninterrupted abuse and negligence while they were residents at the nursing homes. Neither complaint specified separate, independent, negligent acts and/or omissions that caused specific damages. Discovery responses in both cases identified some alleged acts and omissions with specific dates, but Lane’s Estate and Montgomery’s Conservator did not abandon the language of the complaints claiming ongoing wrongful conduct throughout their stays. In 2006, the nursing-home defendants entered into separate settlement agreements with Lane’s Estate and with Montgomery’s Conservator, to which the solvent insurers were parties. MIGA was not a party to either settlement agreement. Under each settlement agreement, the solvent insurers agreed to pay all but $300,000 of the total settlement amount. The nursing-home defendants settled the Lane case for a total of $750,000, and the solvent insurers agreed to pay $450,000 in exchange for the Estate’s agreement to drop all claims, excepting the ROA coverage period. The Montgomery case settled for $1,300,000, with the solvent insurers agreeing to pay $1,000,000 in exchange for the Conservator’s agreement to drop all claims, excepting the ROA coverage period. Under each agreement, the nursing-home defendants would file a declaratory action to determine whether MIGA had a duty to pay the remaining $300,000, and if that effort was unsuccessful, no attempt would be made to execute on the property and assets of the nursing-home defendants, and the suit would be dismissed with prejudice. The circuit court granted summary judgment for MIGA and denied a cross-motion for summary judgment for nursing homes and nursing-home residents. The circuit court found that MIGA was entitled to a credit, which would reduce the amount MIGA must pay to indemnify nursing-home owners and operators. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | This case involves unresolved issues of fact and law, and, therefore, too much uncertainty remains for any ruling on the subject matter of this declaratory-judgment action. Pursuant to M.R.C.P. 57(a), a declaratory judgment would not terminate the uncertainty of this case, as no court has resolved the fundamental questions of the extent, cause, and time of Lane’s and Montgomery’s alleged damages; whether the nursing-home defendants have an obligation to pay; and, if the nursing homes are obligated to pay, for what portion MIGA is obligated to indemnify them. Until a court renders judgment under which the nursing-home defendants must pay for covered damages suffered by Lane and Montgomery during the ROA policy period or MIGA enters into an agreement to indemnify the nursing-home defendants, the issues of whether this case involves one or more “covered claims” and whether MIGA is entitled to a credit are not ripe for adjudication. The underlying cases establish no legal obligation for which MIGA must indemnify the nursing-home defendants. Until a legal obligation has been established, the coverage issues raised in this action are not ripe. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
