 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Prentiss County Board of Education v. Beaumont2/14/2002
or which Hartford is liable under its policy. Thus, the trial judge did not err in awarding damages of $800,000 as he found this amount within Hartford's liability coverage.
. In the alternative, Hartford has allowed itself to be liable for a judgment in excess of the amount of coverage since it voluntarily settled and made payments to some parties. In order to avoid the possibility of liability for amounts greater than the $1,000,000 policy, Hartford should have filed an interpleader action under Rule 22 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure in the lower court so it could decide the amounts of money due to all parties involved. See Scruggs, Millette, Bozeman & Dent, P.A. v. Merkel & Cocke, P.A., 2001 WL 1587918 (Miss. 2001); Chic Creations of Bonita Lakes Mall v. Doleac Elec. Co., 791 So.2d 254 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). The majorities in both of these cases cite the comment to Rule 22 of the M.R.C.P. which states that the purpose of Rule 22 is to let a stakeholder procure a judicial determination of the correct apportionment of the funds held by the stakeholder. Scruggs, 2001 WL 1587918, at *6; Chic, 791 So.2d at 257. Interpleader is proper when the stakeholder is unsure of to whom he is liable and/or when there are concerns about the possibility of multiple claims against a single fund. Id. An interpleader action was available to Hartford as a means to resolve all claims against it, and it would have been prudent to avail itself of the benefits provided in Rule 22.
. The majority holds that Hartford's previous settlements are not voluntary because it had an obligation to defend against said claims. However, the only authority cited is a 1970 case decided in the Florida District Court of Appeals. This case is not controlling in Mississippi. Accordingly, I dissent.
DIAZ, JUSTICE, DISSENTING:
. The majority finds that Charles Beaumont's damages should be reduced to the limit of the insurance policy held by the Board of Supervisors under the authority of Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-15(3) (Supp. 2001). I agree that Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-15(3) requires a judgment to be reduced to the policy limits in situations where there is a single claimant, but I do not believe that statute encompasses a situation where a governmental unit chooses to settle some claims and arbitrarily assign their own value to those claims. For reasons which will be discussed below, I respectfully dissent.
. The majority does not discuss the fact that the school district settled several claims arising out of this accident before a judgment was entered in Beaumont's case. One such settlement was in the amount of approximately $435,000.00. I believe it is unconscionable for this Court to allow defendants to pay one victim a substantial amount of money in settlement, then subsequently apply the remaining funds in the policy to the victim who chooses to go to trial, especially when M.R.C.P. 22 provides a fair procedure to handle cases where there is a limited fund and multiple claimants.
. In Chic Creations of Bonita Lakes Mall v. Doleac Elec. Co., 791 So.2d 254, 257 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000), the Court of Appeals held that when a defendant is faced with multiple claims, the prudent measure is to file a Rule 22 interpleader action. I agree with Beaumont's argument that the school district's decision to spend money out of the $1 million policy should not be binding on Beaumont. I would grant Beaumont's very reasonable request that this Court find the insurance company, not the school district, liable for the entire amount of his judgment.
McRAE, P.J., EASLEY AND GRAVES, JJ., JOIN THIS OPINION.
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|