American Bankers Ins. Co. v. Booth, No. 2000-IA-00844-SCT.
| Decision Date | 21 November 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2000-IA-00844-SCT. |
| Citation | 830 So.2d 1205 |
| Parties | AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA v. Oliver BOOTH. Mercury Finance Company of Mississippi, Inc. v. Oliver Booth. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
W. Scott Welch, III, Jackson, Markham R. Leventhal, Miami, FL, Roland C. Goss, Washington, DC, Robert M. Frey, Jackson, William McDonough, Gulfport, Richard L. Yoder, Anthony L. Thaxton, Laurel, attorneys for appellants.
Lawrence E. Abernathy, III, Laurel, attorney for appellee.
EN BANC.
COBB, J., for the Court.
¶ 1. On February 26, 1998, Oliver Booth filed suit against Mercury Finance Company of Mississippi (Mercury) and American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida (American Bankers) in the Jones County Chancery Court, Second Judicial District, seeking damages for "economic loss incurred as a result" of American Bankers' alleged misdeeds ("including attorney's fees and legal expenses"), tort damages and punitive damages: the whole not to exceed $74,000. Booth claimed that Mercury, as American Bankers' agent, singled him out for unfair and fraudulent treatment, and treated him differently than it has treated its other customers, regarding an insurance policy he had purchased.
¶ 2. After partial discovery, Booth requested and was granted leave to amend his complaint, adding, inter alia, claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty, to his initial claim of fraud in the inducement. He also raised the dollar value sought to $75,000, just under 28 U.S.C. § 1332's amount-in-controversy requirement. Booth further prayed for injunctive relief requiring Mercury and American Bankers to refrain from charging borrowers for insurance premiums prior to the date of issuance of the policy and charging premiums in excess of the amount provided by the policy.
¶ 3. In a second amended complaint, Booth added a claim of civil conspiracy, asserting that he, and others similarly situated, have paid an inflated amount for premiums and have been denied benefits specified in their insurance contract. In addition, Booth requested specific performance and restitution, seeking among other things:
(emphasis added).
¶ 4. American Bankers responded with a motion to dismiss, asserting that the second amended complaint fails to state a claim, because it attempts to assert claims on a class action basis while Mississippi law expressly prohibits such claims. Mercury filed a similar motion to dismiss.
¶ 5. A hearing was held in March 2000. On April 5, 2000, without further explanation, the trial court denied both American Bankers' and Mercury's motions to dismiss. Nine days later, Mercury and American Bankers filed a motion to amend and certify the order for interlocutory appeal. At the hearing to address this motion to amend and certify, the chancery court refused to rule on the issue of certification, stating "I have indicated to you that I think the record needs to be further developed in order for the Court to make a decision on that issue."
¶ 6. Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 5(a), we granted Mercury and American Bankers permission to bring their interlocutory appeals, consolidated the appeals, and granted a request to stay the trial court proceedings pending the resolution of this appeal. Subsequently, Mercury and Booth filed a joint motion to dismiss Mercury from this interlocutory appeal, and that motion was granted. Thus Mercury is no longer a party to this action.
¶ 7. On interlocutory appeal, American Bankers raised three issues, which have been edited for purposes of discussion:
I. DID THE CHANCERY COURT ERR BY PERMITTING BOOTH TO PURSUE AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES ON BEHALF OF "ALL OTHER AMERICAN FINANCE CUSTOMERS" IN MISSISSIPPI?
II. DOES BOOTH HAVE "STANDING" AS A MEMBER OF THE CLASS HE SEEKS TO REPRESENT?
III. DOES THIS SUIT VIOLATE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES AND MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTIONS?
¶ 8. Concluding the chancery court erred by permitting a class action for damages, we reverse and remand. Because the resolution of this issue is dispositive of this interlocutory appeal, we decline to address the other issues raised in this appeal.
FACTS
¶ 9. In March 1995, Oliver Booth bought a used GMC pickup for $2,700. He borrowed the money for this purchase from Mercury's branch office in Hattiesburg, entering into a combination promissory note and security agreement, with the truck as collateral. As part of this agreement, Booth purchased credit life and credit disability coverage from Gulfco Life (not a party to this suit) and automobile insurance from American Bankers.
¶ 10. Approximately five months later, in August 1995, Booth's truck was hit and wrecked when struck by a vehicle fleeing from the police. When Booth called Mercury to report the accident, he was informed that he had no coverage.
¶ 11. Mercury had mistakenly issued Booth the wrong type of insurance—an Installment Floater Certificate of Insurance covering only personal property excluding automobiles—instead of the automobile insurance he thought he was purchasing. Apparently, at that time, Mercury did not even have a standard automobile policy it could offer to sell at the inception of a loan in Mississippi.
¶ 12. In May 1995, about two months after it issued the policy, Mercury discovered its mistake, canceled the American Bankers' policy, refunded the entire premium, and credited Booth's account. (The total cost of the property insurance was only $130.26 for the entire two years.) Although Mercury believed it had verbally notified Booth of the cancellation, Mercury was unable to produce any documentation that confirmed it had done so.
¶ 13. In October 1995, about two months after the accident, Booth traded in the wrecked truck as partial payment for a Thunderbird he purchased from another car dealer, Auto World. Later, Auto World paid off Booth's loan to Mercury.
¶ 14. Booth filed his initial complaint in 1998, and on January 6, 1999, Mercury admitted its mistake and tendered a settlement check in the amount of $3,925.74 to the registry of the chancery court. American Bankers issued two checks to Booth, one for $3,482.95 on April 9, 1999, and one for $2,825.21 on June 8, 2000. Both were mailed to Booth's attorney, along with a cover letter to Booth. These checks from American Bankers were issued without prejudice to any of Booth's rights—not asking for any release or compromise of his claim for cashing the checks. Judging from Booth's deposition testimony, his attorney has never informed Booth of these offers, and Booth has not cashed the checks:
Q. So, you think they [American Bankers] should have paid twenty-seven hundred dollars or a little less than that?
A. Whatever was left on the truck.
Q. And if they'd paid that, you wouldn't have sued?
A. Well, you know, if they would have done me right.
Q. Do you know if they've ever paid that?
A. Well, if they paid it, we wouldn't be in here.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. If they paid it, we wouldn't have been up in here.
Q. So, your answer is you don't think American Bankers has ever paid that claim?
A. Right.
Q. Do you know if they've ever offered to pay?
Q. What would you do if they offered to pay it today?
A. I'd have to get with my lawyer here-whatever my lawyer do [sic].
Q. But it's your testimony as far as you know, they've never offered to pay the claim?
A. As far as I know, unless they did it with my lawyer. I trust whatever he—whatever he got [sic] going.
(emphasis added).1
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 15. When the issues presented on an interlocutory appeal are questions of law, this Court will review those issues de novo. Gant v. Maness, 786 So.2d 401, 403 (Miss.2001).
DISCUSSION
I. DID THE CHANCERY COURT ERR BY PERMITTING BOOTH TO PURSUE AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES ON BEHALF OF "ALL OTHER AMERICAN FINANCE CUSTOMERS" IN MISSISSIPPI?
A. The Ancient Bill of Peace
¶ 16. According to American Bankers, Booth argued in the trial court that "even if his complaint did not meet the requirements for class relief, he should be permitted to proceed via a `Bill of Peace' because the relief he seeks on behalf of the absent plaintiff class is `similar' to that provided by a Bill of Peace." American Bankers argues that the representative class action Booth is seeking to maintain bears no resemblance to the ancient bill of peace. Booth apparently has abandoned his bill of peace argument, failing to assert it on appeal; nevertheless, we will address this issue. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Hawkins, 781 So.2d 899, 900-01 (Miss.2001) ().
¶ 17. "The ancient bill of peace was a procedural vehicle employed when equitable relief was needed to prevent the hardship which would result from prosecuting or defending numerous actions at law." Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc. v. Deakle, 661 So.2d 188, 192 (Miss.1995). "While the label `bill of peace' may not have survived the adoption of the M.R.C.P., the chancery court's authority to grant substantive relief through equity remains viable and available." Id. The chancery court's equity jurisdiction may properly be invoked to enjoin a multiplicity of successive suits at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Standard
...23, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B) (emphasis added), and Mississippi has no class action procedure whatsoever, see Am. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Booth, 830 So.2d 1205, 1212–14 (Miss.2002). See generally Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 701 F.3d 796, 799 (5th Cir.2012), rev'd and remande......
-
In re Standard & Poor's Rating Agency Litig.
...23, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B) (emphasis added), and Mississippi has no class action procedure whatsoever, see Am. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Booth, 830 So.2d 1205, 1212–14 (Miss.2002). See generally Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 701 F.3d 796, 799 (5th Cir.2012), rev'd and remande......
-
Crawford v. Morris Transp., Inc.
...Miss. 838, 100 So.2d 614, 615-16 (1958). But we look to the content or substance of a pleading over its form. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Booth, 830 So.2d 1205, 1214 (Miss.2002) (quoting Arnona v. Smith, 749 So.2d 63, 66 ¶ 36. Crawford's motion to dismiss explained that no complaint had been fi......
-
Hood v. Jpmorgan Chase & Co.
...or a rule of judicial procedure and because Mississippi state law explicitly prohibits class actions, see American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Booth, 830 So.2d 1205, 1214 (Miss.2002) (“[T]he rule is that Mississippi does not permit class actions, even equitable class actions in chancery cou......
-
Table of Cases
...2000), 595 Alvarado v. Selma Convalescent Hosp., 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 250 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007), 760 Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Booth, 830 So. 2d 1205 (Miss. 2002), 964 Am. Bankers Ass’n v. Gould, 412 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2005), 206 Am Bankers Ass’n v. Lockyer, Nos. 04-16334, 04-16560, 2005 ......
-
State Consumer Protection Laws
...be maintained in the name of and for the sole use and benefit of the individual person.”); see Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Booth, 830 So. 2d 1205, 1211-14 (Miss. 2002) (holding that the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure “do[] not permit class actions, even equitable class actions in ......