Addison v. Allstate Ins. Co., Civ.A. 3:99CV150LN.
| Decision Date | 20 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 3:99CV150LN.,Civ.A. 3:99CV150LN. |
| Citation | 97 F.Supp.2d 771 |
| Parties | Curtis L. ADDISON, Jr. d/b/a Addison Auto Body Repair, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
Bob Owens, Rajita M. Iyler, Owens Law Firm, Jackson, MS, Barry H. Powell, Attorney, Jackson, MS, for plaintiff.
William C. Griffin, Trent L. Walker, Currie, Johnson, Griffin, Gaines & Myers, Jackson, MS, for defendant.
This cause is before the court on the motion of defendant Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), an Illinois Corporation, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Curtis L. Addison, Jr. d/b/a Addison Auto Body Repair (Addison) has responded in opposition to the motion and has also moved the court, pursuant to Rule 56(f), to defer ruling on defendant's summary judgment motion until plaintiff's pending motions to compel have been resolved and additional discovery has been obtained. The court, having considered the memoranda and submissions of the parties, concludes that defendant's summary judgment motion is well taken and should be granted and that plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motion is not well taken and should be denied.1
As noted in the court's June 3, 1999 opinion, plaintiff, a Mississippi resident, filed this action on January 26, 1999 against Allstate and Dennis Dyse, an Allstate adjuster, in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi asserting claims for tortious interference with business relations and violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 83-11-501 (Supp.1998).2 Defendants timely removed the case to this court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, arguing that Dyse had been fraudulently joined. Plaintiff then moved for remand, while Dyse moved for dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court denied plaintiff's remand motion, but granted Dyse's motion to dismiss. Thereafter, on January 18, 2000, Allstate filed the instant motion for summary judgment, asserting that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law since plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue as to any material fact with regard to either of his claims.
In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that Allstate, through its adjusters, implemented a "steering policy" that has "the purpose and effect of requiring a large percentage of its customers to utilize repair shops selected by Allstate...." Plaintiff contends that for years, he has operated an auto body repair shop which receives a significant portion of its income from body repair work paid for by insurance companies, such as Allstate, pursuant to collision and comprehensive insurance coverage. He alleges that because of Allstate's priority repair option (PRO) program, according to which Allstate pre-approves and recommends certain body shops to perform repairs for its insureds, plaintiff, who is not a participant, has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of business income. Allstate argues that plaintiff's claim for violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 83-11-501 fails as a matter of law because Allstate does not require as a condition of payment that repairs to damaged vehicles be made at particular repair shops.3 Defendant further argues that plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with business relations similarly fails as a matter of law because plaintiff has neither adequately alleged damages nor demonstrated that Allstate's actions were calculated to harm his business.
Having carefully reviewed the record, as well as the opinion recently issued by Judge Barbour in Christmon d/b/a Triple "C" Collision Repair Shop v. Allstate Ins. Co., 82 F.Supp.2d 612 (S.D.Miss. 2000), a case nearly factually identical to the one before the court, the court concludes both that plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue as to any material fact regarding either of his claims and that additional discovery pertaining to customers who may have been "diverted by Allstate" will not enable him to do so.
As to plaintiff's allegation that Allstate has violated § 83-11-501, plaintiff has presented no evidence suggesting that Allstate or any of its agents has conditioned payment of a claim upon the utilization of the body shops participating in its PRO program. To the contrary, plaintiff's own witnesses have attested to the fact that while Allstate agents may have recommended certain participating body shops, Allstate has not conditioned payment upon having the PRO shops make the repairs to the insured's vehicles. In fact, the affidavit testimony of plaintiff's witnesses reveals that Allstate has actually paid plaintiff to make necessary repairs for Allstate insureds who choose to have their vehicles repaired at his shop. Thus, considering that the statute unambiguously forbids only the conditioning of payment upon the selection of certain body repair shops, not the steering of insureds toward certain shops, plaintiff has failed to present evidence sufficient to withstand defendant's summary judgment motion.4
Turning to plaintiff's tortious interference claim, the court similarly concludes that plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue as to any material fact, so that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
To maintain a claim for tortious interference with business relations under Mississippi law, the plaintiff must prove each of the following elements:
1. the [defendant's] acts were intentional and willful;
2. the [defendant's] acts were calculated to cause damage to the plaintiff[] in [his] lawful business;
3. the [defendant's] acts were done with the unlawful purpose of causing damage and loss without right or justifiable cause on part of the defendant (which constitutes malice);
4. actual damage and loss resulted.
Christmon, at 615. In the case at bar, plaintiff has failed to present any evidence that defendant's PRO program was calculated to cause damage to his business or that it was established with the unlawful purpose of causing damage and loss with no justifiable cause on behalf of the defendant. Plaintiff has offered nothing more than unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations as to defendant's motive and attempted to persuade the court, with no supporting authority, that intent may be inferred from Allstate's knowledge of the consequences of its program. Allstate, on the other hand, has presented evidence of a legitimate justification for its program through the affidavit of Dan James, an Allstate claims adjuster.5 Plaintiff has thus failed to adduce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the required elements of this claim.
While the court has concluded that plaintiff's evidence is not sufficient to withstand defendant's motion on either of his claims, plaintiff asks that the court continue the summary judgment motion in order to give him an opportunity for discovery. The court rejects this request.
As Judge Barbour noted in Christmon, "`[t]o obtain a continuance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TREMONT LLC v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
...summary judgment `must show that the additional discovery will be more than a mere `fishing expedition.''" Addison v. Allstate Ins. Co., 97 F.Supp.2d 771, 774 (S.D. Miss. 2000) (quoting Christmon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 82 F.Supp.2d 612, 614 (S.D.Miss. 2000)); see also Robbins v. Amoco Prod. ......
-
Wright ex rel. Wright v. United States, Civil Action No. 3:13–CV–637TSL–JCG.
...summary judgment must show that the additional discovery will be more than a mere ‘fishing expedition.’ ” Addison v. Allstate Ins. Co., 97 F.Supp.2d 771, 774 (S.D.Miss.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Robbins v. Amoco Prod. Co., 952 F.2d 901, 907 (5th Cir.1992......
-
Gunn v. City of Cleveland
...will not be granted upon mere vague assertions that the additional discovery will produce needed facts. See Addison v. Allstate Ins. Co., 97 F.Supp. 2d 771, 774-75 (S.D. Miss. 2000) (quoting Krim, 989 F. 2d at 1442). Plaintiff has failed to assert any additional specific facts needed to pro......
-
Capitol Body Shop, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...repairs to a damaged vehicle ... must be made by a particular contractor or motor vehicle repair shop." See Addison v. Allstate Ins. Co., 97 F. Supp. 2d 771, 773 (S.D. Miss. 2000) ("[T]he statute unambiguously forbids only the conditioning of payment upon the selection of certain body shops......