 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
T & S Express3/25/2003
final adjudication of the defendant's liability. Rather than continuing to pursue what Norton Ramsey (and Liberty Mutual, indirectly) apparently believed to be a valid defense to Myers's claim, Liberty Mutual elected, for reasons not appearing in this record, to effect a settlement with Myers. There is no authority, insofar as this Court is aware, holding that the mere compromise of a disputed claim is the equivalent of the payment of a legal obligation within the meaning of the law relating to common law subrogation. Neither does it appear that the issue of whether Liberty Mutual's settlement payment to Myers was in satisfaction of a legal obligation of Norton Ramsey was litigated and adjudicated at the trial level in the action now before us on appeal. In that circumstance, we are constrained to hold that Liberty Mutual has failed, as a matter of law, to establish critical facts necessary to support its claim for subrogation asserted against T&S;
. Liberty relies heavily on Bush v. City of Laurel, 215 So. 2d 256, 259 (Miss. 1968), to argue its right of indemnity. In Bush, the City of Laurel settled with Bush for $10,000, and sought indemnity from the contractor. The Supreme Court ruled that the city had a non-delegable duty which created an obligation to pay. In the case sub judice no such obligation is present.
. The Court recognizes the origins of indemnity as when one person is required to pay money which another person in all fairness should pay, then the former may recover indemnity from the latter. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Halliburton Co. 826 So. 2d 1206, 1216 ( ) (Miss. 2001).
The key element of this theory that is missing in the present case is the requirement to pay; there was not one. Liberty was required to show at trial that it paid the Myerses under an obligation and that the payment was reasonable. The Myerses claim against T&S;was time barred and allowing recovery in this way without comporting with the requirements of indemnity law would render the statute of limitations non-effective.
. At no time during the trial did Liberty produce any evidence regarding its obligation to pay the Myerses. Liberty had no liability to the Myerses and did not show anything other than an absence of liability. There can be no recovery without proving that a legal obligation existed. These are issues of law based upon facts that are undisputed; therefore, the trial court should have granted a directed verdict in favor of T&S;
II. A NEW TRIAL IS IN ORDER AS THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING TWO JURY INSTRUCTIONS OFFERED BY LIBERTY AND REFUSING NUMEROUS JURY INSTRUCTIONS OFFERED BY T&S;
. Review of this issue is not required.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEFLORE COUNTY IS REVERSED AND RENDERED. COSTS ARE TAXED AGAINST THE APPELLEE.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, LEE, IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
|