Coombs v. Jason Pilger Hyundai Gautier

• Decision Date: 10 December 2019
• Docket Number: NO. 2018-CA-01571-COA,2018-CA-01571-COA
• Citation: 285 So.3d 730
• Parties: Barbara Ann COOMBS and Her Daughter, A.D., a Minor By and Through Her Mother and Next Friend, Barbara Ann Coombs, Appellants v. JASON PILGER HYUNDAI OF GAUTIER, Mississippi and Randy Workman, Appellees
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

285 So.3d 730

Barbara Ann COOMBS and Her Daughter, A.D., a Minor By and Through Her Mother and Next Friend, Barbara Ann Coombs, Appellants

v.JASON PILGER HYUNDAI OF GAUTIER, Mississippi and Randy Workman, Appellees

NO. 2018-CA-01571-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

December 10, 2019

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: ELMER LOUIS FONDREN JR., Gautier

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DAVID BENNETT PILGE

BEFORE J. WILSON, P.J., McDONALD AND McCARTY, JJ.

McDONALD, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Barbara Coombs and her minor daughter filed suit against Jason Pilger Hyundai and Randy Workman¹ for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Barbara claimed that when she leased/purchased a vehicle from Pilger Hyundai, Workman and other employees misled her into purchasing new insurance coverage that did not include uninsured motorist coverage. When she and her daughter had an accident with an uninsured motorist and her new insurer denied their claim for lack of coverage, they sued Pilger Hyundai, Randy Workman, and others for damages. Because Barbara had signed an arbitration agreement with the dealership, the County Court of Jackson County ordered arbitration, and the arbitrator ruled in favor of Pilger Hyundai and Workman. Barbara and her daughter appealed the arbitrator's decision to the county court and then to the Jackson County Circuit Court. Both courts upheld the arbitration award. Barbara and her daughter have now appealed the circuit court's judgment denying their request to vacate the arbitration award. We affirm because Barbara and her daughter failed to timely appeal the order compelling arbitration and waived the right to challenge it on appeal after participating in the arbitration proceeding. Also, Barbara and her daughter failed to establish any statutory ground for vacating the arbitrator's decision.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. The Vehicle Purchase

¶2. Barbara leased/purchased a vehicle from Pilger Hyundai on June 11, 2013. Workman sold Barbara the car and Ryan McMahon, another Pilger Hyundai employee, was introduced to her as the "insurance man who would get her the full coverage insurance she wanted at a lower price." Barbara already had full coverage, including uninsured motorist coverage, with another company, but McMahon convinced her to switch. McMahon completed a Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) automobile insurance application for Barbara online in her presence, although she said that she was unable to see the computer monitor. Barbara claims that McMahon entered a rejection of uninsured motorist coverage on the computer but wrongfully concealed this fraudulent act from her. Barbara believed she was purchasing full coverage insurance, which included uninsured motorist coverage, although she admitted that she signed the above-mentioned form without reading it. Later, when Barbara received a copy of the GEICO policy in the mail, Barbara also failed to read it.

¶3. In connection with her purchase, Barbara signed a "Dispute Resolution Agreement for Binding Arbitration." Among its provisions, the agreement states that "any controversy or claim between the Buyer(s)/Lessee(s) and Jason Pilger Hyundai arising out of or relating to ... (5) any and all related finance, insurance, extended warranty and/or service agreements... or any breach thereof shall be resolved by binding arbitration ...."

II. The Accident

¶4. On November 16, 2013, Barbara and her fourteen year old daughter, A.D.,² were involved in an automobile accident in which they were struck by Kenyon Sumlin, an uninsured motorist. After the accident, both sought medical treatment, and Barbara filed uninsured motorist claims with GEICO for herself and her daughter. GEICO denied the claims because Barbara's insurance policy did not include uninsured motorist coverage.

III. County Court Action

¶5. On March 3, 2015, Coombs filed an action in the Jackson County County Court against Sumlin and GEICO. GEICO was dismissed when Coombs learned that McMahon was not a GEICO agent but simply an employee of Pilger Hyundai. On August 13, 2015, Coombs filed an amended complaint against Sumlin, "Ryan,"³ Workman, and Pilger Hyundai. The amended complaint alleged that Pilger Hyundai and Workman directly and proximately contributed to a fraudulent misrepresentation being made to Barbara—i.e. that she was getting "full insurance coverage"—and that this misrepresentation led her to reasonably believe that her new insurance with GEICO included uninsured motorist coverage.

¶6. On October 21, 2015, Pilger Hyundai and Workman filed a motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration in the alternative. On November 3, 2015, Coombs filed a response and argued that the arbitration agreement was null and void as to Barbara because it was a one-sided contract of adhesion and because it violated her right to a jury trial. Coombs also argued that the agreement was void as to A.D. because the child was not a party to the arbitration agreement.⁴ On November 17, 2015, the county court entered an order compelling arbitration of all claims.⁵

¶7. On December 21, 2015, Coombs filed a motion for relief from the order compelling arbitration or, alternatively, for an order requiring Pilger Hyundai and Workman to pay the arbitration fees.⁶ A hearing was held on this motion. On February 12, 2016, the court affirmed its previous order compelling arbitration and granted Coombs's request for payment of the arbitration fees. Coombs did not appeal the court's order compelling arbitration but chose to participate in the arbitration.

IV. The Arbitration

¶8. At the arbitration, Barbara and A.D. testified; Pilger Hyundai and Workman called no witnesses. According to the arbitration decision rendered on December 22, 2017, Barbara admitted that Pilger Hyundai was an automobile dealership and that none of its employees wore or displayed anything that would indicate a relationship with GEICO. Barbara also testified that she received her GEICO policy in the mail but did not read it. The arbitrator found that based on the testimony presented, there was no evidence that supported Coombs's claims that Pilger Hyundai employees had apparent authority to act for GEICO. Nor did the proof support claims of intentional or negligent misrepresentation. The arbitrator found "no facts which indicate conduct on behalf of Jason Pilger Hyundai to induce the public to believe it has a relationship with Geico or is an insurance agent of Geico; thus, the question becomes, is Ms. Coombs reasonable in her reliance on Workman's statement that he would get her the same coverage she had with State Farm." Based upon the testimony presented, the arbitrator decided that it was not reasonable for Barbara to have relied on Workman's statements, and he found for Pilger Hyundai and Workman.

¶9. On February 5, 2018, Coombs filed a motion with the arbitrator asking him to reconsider his decision and correct factual errors. The arbitrator denied Coombs's motion.

V. Appeal of the Arbitration Decision to County Court

¶10. On February 7, 2018, Coombs filed a notice of appeal from the arbitrator's decision in the county court. Coombs argued that the arbitrator made numerous factual mistakes and that because A.D. was not a party to the arbitration contract, the minor's claim should not be decided by an arbitrator.⁷ On March 5, 2018, following a hearing on Coombs's motion, the county court entered an order denying the appeal of the arbitrator's decision.

VI. Appeal to Circuit Court

¶11. Aggrieved with the county court's decision, Coombs appealed to the Jackson County Circuit Court on March 9, 2018. In their appeal, Coombs alleged the arbitrator made errors warranting a vacation of the decision under Mississippi Code Annotated sections 11-15-133 and 11-15-135 (Rev. 2004).⁸ Further, Coombs argued that the minor was not a signor and was not connected to the arbitration agreement and that the minor's business was subject to the jurisdiction and approval of the chancery court.⁹

¶12. On October 23, 2018, the circuit court held that Coombs failed to prove any of the grounds for vacation of an award pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-15-23, and therefore, it denied Coombs's requested relief. The court made no specific ruling on Coombs's argument that the minor's claim should not have been sent to arbitration. Coombs appealed the circuit court's decision to this Court on October 30, 2018.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶13. The standard by which an appellate court reviews a trial court's order confirming an arbitration award is that questions of law are reviewed de novo and findings of fact are reviewed only for clear error. D. W. Caldwell Inc. v. W.G. Yates & Sons Constr. Co. , 242 So. 3d 92, 99 (¶15) (Miss. 2018). The level of review afforded to the decision of an arbitrator is quite narrow and provided by statute. Robinson v. Henne , 115 So. 3d 797, 799 (¶6) (Miss. 2013). An arbitration award may be overturned by a reviewing court only if the elements of the applicable statute are present. Wilson v. Greyhound Bus Lines Inc. , 830 So. 2d 1151, 1157 (¶16) (Miss. 2002). Normally we review the grant or denial of a motion to compel arbitration de novo. East Ford Inc. v. Taylor , 826 So. 2d 709, 713 (¶9) (Miss. 2002).

DISCUSSION

¶14. On appeal, Coombs raises eleven issues.¹⁰ Issue #1, and Issues ##3-9 allege errors made by the arbitrator that Coombs contend warrant vacation of the arbitration award. Issue #2 and Issue #11 challenge the county court order compelling arbitration of both Barbara's and A.D.'s claims. We find that Barbara and A.D. failed to timely appeal the order compelling arbitration, and we lack jurisdiction to address it now. Alternatively, Barbara and A.D. waived the right to challenge the validity of an order compelling arbitration after participating in it. We further find that the circuit court did not err in holding that Coombs failed to prove any of the grounds for vacation of the arbitration award pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section...