US Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Moss, No. 2002-IA-01961-SCT.
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Writing for the Court | Before SMITH, P.J., EASLEY and GRAVES, JJ. |
Citation | 873 So.2d 76 |
Parties | UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY and City of Meridian, Mississippi v. Richard K. MOSS. |
Decision Date | 25 March 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 2002-IA-01961-SCT. |
873 So.2d 76
UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY and City of Meridian, Mississippiv.
Richard K. MOSS
No. 2002-IA-01961-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
March 25, 2004.
Rehearing Denied June 3, 2004.
David Zachary Scruggs, David Paul Voisin, Myles A. Parker, attorneys for appellants.
Robert C. Boyd, Jackson, James Randal Wallace, attorneys for appellee.
Before SMITH, P.J., EASLEY and GRAVES, JJ.
SMITH, Presiding Justice, for the Court.
¶ 1. This lawsuit stems from allegations of improper handling of numerous aspects of a workers' compensation claim. Plaintiff Richard K. Moss ("Moss") filed suit against the City of Meridian ("City"), a Mississippi municipal corporation, and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company ("USF & G") in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, alleging breach of contract and negligence. The City and USF & G moved for a transfer of venue pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 11-45-25 (Rev.2002), suits by and against municipalities, and 11-11-7 (1972) (repealed effective January 1, 2003), actions against insurance companies. The circuit court denied the motion and the defendants' request to certify the order denying venue change for interlocutory appeal.
¶ 2. Subsequently, the defendants filed a Petition for Interlocutory Appeal to this Court. This Court granted that petition. See M.R.A.P. 5. The defendants now ask this Court to determine whether the circuit court erred in denying their motion to
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 3. Richard K. Moss, an employee of the City of Meridian, sustained injuries while at work, rendering him disabled and partially paralyzed below the waist. He submitted a workers' compensation claim for benefits long before his complaint in this action was filed. Defendants City and USF & G, the City's workers' compensation insurer, admitted liability for the maximum limit of wage indemnity benefits and all medical services related to Moss's injury. Accordingly, USF & G paid workers' compensation and medical benefits to Moss beginning at the time of the accident, June 18, 1995, up until about July 10, 2001, when payments stopped. Allegedly due to an error or oversight, Moss's payments "fell off" the automated computer system of USF & G, and Moss did receive payment again until November 21, 2001. Moss contends that the defendants also failed to pay a medical bill for x-rays to a physician in Hinds County, Mississippi. Moss alleges that defendants were made aware of the non-payment, but refused to pay. The bill was eventually turned over to a collection agent.
¶ 4. Moss filed this suit in the Circuit Court of Hinds County on November 13, 2001, alleging that he suffered emotional distress as a result of the lapse in his payments. On November 28, 2001, USF & G paid all past due compensation payments resulting from the lapse. Subsequently, the defendants filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to Lauderdale County, Mississippi, pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. §§ 11-45-25 & 11-11-7. The circuit court denied the motion, but the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mississippi Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.C., Nos. 2012–IA–01130–SCT, 2012–IA–01131–SCT.
...Tort Claims Act, are reviewed de novo. S. Cent. Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Guffy, 930 So.2d 1252, 1255 (Miss.2006); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Moss, 873 So.2d 76, 77 (Miss.2004). ¶ 7. The MTCA provides that venue “against the state or its employees shall be in the county in which the act, omission or......
-
Miss. Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.C., NO. 2012-IA-01130-SCT
...Claims Act, are reviewed de novo. S. Cent. Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Guffy, 930 So. 2d 1252, 1255 (Miss. 2006); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Moss, 873 So. 2d 76, 77 (Miss. 2004).¶7. The MTCA provides that venue "against the state or its employees shall be in the county in which the act, omission or ev......
-
Miss. Crime Lab. v. Douglas, No. 2010–IA–00776–SCT.
...proper venue in cases where a plaintiff files suit against the State or one of its subdivisions.” United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Moss, 873 So.2d 76, 78 (Miss.2004). Section 11–46–13(2) determines where venue is proper, and it states in pertinent part: The venue for any suit filed under t......
-
Mississippi Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.C., Nos. 2012–IA–01130–SCT, 2012–IA–01131–SCT.
...Tort Claims Act, are reviewed de novo. S. Cent. Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Guffy, 930 So.2d 1252, 1255 (Miss.2006); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Moss, 873 So.2d 76, 77 (Miss.2004). ¶ 7. The MTCA provides that venue “against the state or its employees shall be in the county in which the act, omission or......
-
Miss. Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.C., NO. 2012-IA-01130-SCT
...Claims Act, are reviewed de novo. S. Cent. Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Guffy, 930 So. 2d 1252, 1255 (Miss. 2006); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Moss, 873 So. 2d 76, 77 (Miss. 2004).¶7. The MTCA provides that venue "against the state or its employees shall be in the county in which the act, omission or ev......
-
Miss. Crime Lab. v. Douglas, No. 2010–IA–00776–SCT.
...proper venue in cases where a plaintiff files suit against the State or one of its subdivisions.” United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Moss, 873 So.2d 76, 78 (Miss.2004). Section 11–46–13(2) determines where venue is proper, and it states in pertinent part: The venue for any suit filed under t......