 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Cook12/5/2002
ot reversible error. The instruction continues as follows:
You are further instructed that under Mississippi law, a company's refusal to pay a legitimate claim without or arguable reason, may give rise to an action for bad faith. Therefore, if you find by a preponderance of the evidence in this case that Mississippi Power and Light refused to pay Kenneth Cook's claim for workmen's compensation benefits and did so without a legitimate or arguable reason, then you may assess damages against Mississippi Power and Light in accordance with the Court's other instructions.
While the substance of the instruction is not correct, it is not reversible error when read as a whole. "Imperfections in particular instructions do not require reversal where all seen together fairly announce the primary rules applicable to the case." See, e.g., Flight Line, Inc. v. Tanksley, 608 So. 2d 1149, 1157 (Miss. 1992); Purina Mills, Inc. v. Moak, 575 So. 2d 993, 996 (Miss. 1990); Payne v. Rain Forest Nurseries, Inc., 540 So. 2d 35, 40 (Miss. 1989).
. The standard cited in the beginning of the instruction is a standard used by the Workers' Compensation Commission to determine benefits. However, its use in this instruction is not sufficiently prejudicial to MP&L;to require a reversal.
XI. WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN CHANGING DEFENDANT'S JURY INSTRUCTION D-15 REQUIRING "ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE" AS AN ELEMENT OF BAD FAITH TO "KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN," THUS CONVERTING THE INTENTIONAL TORT OF BAD FAITH REFUSAL TO A NEGLIGENCE TORT.
. Jury Instruction No. 8/D-15 reads as follows:
The Court instructs the jury that to prove a bad faith denial of workers' compensation benefits against MP&L; Ken cook must prove
1. There was an intentional refusal by MP&L;to continue temporary total disability benefits;
2. There was no legitimate reason or arguable basis for terminating the temporary total disability benefits; and
3. MP&L;knew or should have known that there was no legitimate reason for paying the claim.
If you find that any one or more of the above have not been proved by Ken Cook, then you cannot return a verdict or award damages in his favor.
MP&L;correctly points out in its brief cases such as Patton-Tully Transp. Co. v. Douglas, 761 So. 2d 835, 844 (Miss. 2000), wherein the above language of "knew or should have known" is a negligence standard. MP&L;correctly believes that the third part of the instruction which says "knew or should have known" was error in that it changes the standard to a negligence one. However, as Cook's brief points out, the use of the word "intentional" in the first portion of the instruction sounds like an intentional tort instruction.
. Again, viewing the jury instructions as a whole, this is also harmless error.
XII. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED WHEN IT REFUSED TO VACATE THE JURY'S ASSESSMENT OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES ON GROUNDS
(A) PLAINTIFF'S PROOF FAILED TO SATISFY ANY OF THE LEGALLY APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES; AND/OR
(B) THE VERDICT WAS THE PRODUCT OF BIAS, PASSION AND PREJUDICE AGAINST MP&L;
. "Mississippi law does not favor punitive damages; they are considered an extraordinary remedy and are allowed `within caution and with narrow limits.'" Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tenn. v. Bristow, 529 So. 2d 620, 622 (Miss. 1988). Punitive damages may not be assessed against the defendant unless the defendant "acted with actual malice, gross negligence which evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or committed actual fr
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.
|
|