 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
AmSouth Bank v. Gupta11/21/2002
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART - 11/21/2002
EN BANC.
. This case originated when Dr. Krishan K. Gupta and his closely-held corporation, Rishi Enterprises, Inc. (collectively "Gupta"), filed a complaint in the Hinds County Circuit Court, First Judicial District, against Deposit Guaranty National Bank ("AmSouth"). Gupta's complaint sought actual and punitive damages for alleged breach of fiduciary duties, negligent misrepresentation, interference with business relationship, breach of contract, fraud, and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. After AmSouth answered, denying all claims, Gupta amended his complaint, adding allegations of breach of duty of disclosure and lack of commercial reasonableness. These new allegations were also denied by AmSouth. Following a trial on the merits, the jury found for Gupta, awarding actual damages of $600,000 and punitive damages of $2.5 million. Accordingly, the trial judge entered a final judgment for $3.1 million on June 30, 2000.
. Aggrieved by the final judgment and the denial of its JNOV/new trial motion, AmSouth appeals, assigning as error the following matters (renumbered for clarity):
I. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS UNCONTRADICTED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTED OF ONLY 13.73 ACRES, NOT 15.25.
II. WHETHER A REASONABLE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND AMSOUTH LIABLE ON GUPTA'S TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM.
III. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.
IV. WHETHER THE JURY WAS INADEQUATELY INSTRUCTED ON THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF PROOF REGARDING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.
V. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF DUTY OF DISCLOSURE.
VI. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF THE DUTY OF COMMERCIAL REASONABLENESS.
VII. WHETHER THE JURY'S AWARD OF ACTUAL DAMAGES WAS SPECULATIVE AND SHOULD THUS BE REVERSED.
VIII. WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF GUPTA'S EXPERT WITNESS WAS WRONGLY ADMITTED.
IX. WHETHER A JNOV OR NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE AWARDED ON THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
. Although Gupta's claim of negligent misrepresentation went to the jury, and AmSouth includes "negligent misrepresentation" in a single-sentence listing of all Gupta's claims in the summary of argument portion of its brief, AmSouth omits the issue from its headings and makes no further mention of this claim in its brief or its reply brief. It is settled precedent that issues on which a party fails to expend any discussion or citation of authority are not reviewed by this Court. See, e.g., Smith v. Dorsey, 599 So. 2d 529, 532 (Miss. 1992).
. On the issues actually argued by AmSouth, the assignments of error are well taken. The judgment should be affirmed in part (insofar as the uncontested negligent misrepresentation issue is concerned), reversed and rendered in part (insofar as the other liability issues and the issue of punitive damages are concerned), and remanded for a new trial on the actual damages, if any, to be awarded for negligent misrepresentation.
FACTS
. On March 18, 1997, Gupta contacted his banker at AmSouth, Renee Rice, about securing a loan to purchase 15.25 acres on Lake Harbour Drive in Ridgeland. On March 25, 1997, Rice and Ken Farmer, a loan officer brought in to assist because of the size of the loan, met with Dr. and Mrs. Gupta at Gupta's office to discuss the $1.3 million loan.
. Following this meeting, both of the Guptas phoned Rice and Farmer
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|