 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Cook12/5/2002
ary. Walls v. Franklin Corp., 797 So. 2d 973, 974 (Miss. 2001). However, what distinguishes that opinion from the present case is that Cook's settlement claim had been approved by the Commission and nothing was left pending before them.
IV. WHETHER THERE WAS AN ARGUABLE BASIS TO DISCONTINUE COOK'S DISABILITY BENEFITS.
. While MP&L;argues that "Cook has offered nothing to show that MP&L;has acted out of malice, with gross neglect or otherwise tortiously," per the requirements of the Miller test, the denial of benefits does not have to be willful or malicious but there may not be an arguable basis to deny the claims. Miller v. McRae's, Inc., 444 So. 2d 368 (Miss. 1984).
. It is the trial judge's responsibility to determine whether there was an arguable basis, legal or factual, for the denial or termination of benefits. Andrew Jackson Life Insurance Co. v. Williams, 566 So. 2d 1172, 1184 (Miss. 1990). However, most pertinent for the present case is Reserve Life Insurance Co. v. McGee, 444 So. 2d 803, 809 (Miss. 1984), where we have stated that "in the event the trial [judge] determines that as a matter of law it cannot hold that the insurer had a legitimate and arguable defensive position, but that the evidence constituted disputed facts as to whether or not such situation existed, then the trial [judge] should submit [the arguable basis and punitive damages] issue to the jury." This is exactly what the trial judge did in this case. In bad faith MP&L;cut off Cook's benefits entirely rather than paying appropriate disability for a 15% permanent impairment to the right shoulder, which is what two doctors' reports found. The motion for a directed verdict was properly denied because the trial judge determined that there were disputed facts. The facts are not so overwhelmingly in favor of MP&L;that we must reverse and render. In fact, they show that MP&L;should have paid Cook for his 15% impairment rating.
V. WHETHER COOK'S CLAIM THAT HE WAS FORCED TO SETTLE UNDER DURESS FAIL PROCEDURALLY OR SUBSTANTIVELY.
. Cook's claim that he was forced to settle his workers' compensation claim under duress does not fail either procedurally or substantively. MP&L;once again argues that this case is improperly in the circuit court and that it should be in front of the Workers' Compensation Commission. Again, this argument is misplaced because a bad faith refusal to pay claim may be properly brought in circuit court. Holland, 469 So. 2d at 59. Thus, procedurally this claim is not barred.
. Cook's claim of duress is part of his bad faith claim that he reserved the right to bring within his settlement with MP&L;before the Commission. Thus, by the very nature of the claim, duress is a part of the claim for bad faith.
VI. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT "MISHANDLED" COOK'S BANKRUPTCY "MANIFOLD."
. Under 11 U.S.C. ยง 521 a debtor in bankruptcy has a duty to file a listing of all of his assets and liabilities. Cook filed his Voluntary Petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Act on September 10, 1993. However, he did not disclose this claim in the bankruptcy proceeding due to his belief that this claim would not amount to anything. Furthermore, his attorney advised him that it was not necessary to disclose this to the Bankruptcy Court. When MP&L;sought to have the bankruptcy proceedings reopened, Cook amended Item 20 on Schedule B to reflect his claim on February 12, 1999.
. The circuit court held that the bankruptcy documents could be used for impeachment, but the entire bankruptcy file could not be admitted into evidence because it might confuse the jury. The jury heard what Cook said was his
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|