Farm Bureau Federation v. Roberts, 2004-IA-02016-SCT.
| Decision Date | 02 March 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2004-IA-02016-SCT.,2004-IA-02016-SCT. |
| Citation | 927 So.2d 739 |
| Parties | MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Claiborne County Farm Bureau, Rankin County Farm Bureau, Amite County Farm Bureau, Lauderdale County Farm Bureau, Rural Insurance Agency, Inc., Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Marcus Martin, Dan Martin, Michael Bridwell, Randy Hynum and Tommy Allen v. Brenda ROBERTS, Barbara Rigdon, Martha Via, Becky Kirkland and Alinda White. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Amy K. Elder, Sam E. Scott, Dale G. Russell, Charles G. Copeland, Ken R. Adcock, Ridgeland, G. Michael Warren, attorneys for appellants.
Mark T. McLeod, Diamondhead, Mitchell H. Tyner, Genevieve G. McLeod, attorneys for appellees.
Before WALLER, P.J., DICKINSON and RANDOLPH, JJ.
¶ 1. After the Circuit Court of Claiborne County denied a motion to sever, Appellants Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation, Claiborne County Farm Bureau, Rankin County Farm Bureau, Amite County Farm Bureau, Lauderdale County Farm Bureau, Rural Insurance Agency, Inc., Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Marcus Martin, Dan Martin, Michael Bridwell, Randy Hynum, and Tommy Allen ["defendants"] filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal, which we granted. Finding that the denial of the motion to sever constituted error, we reverse the circuit court's order and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶ 2. Five plaintiffs, Brenda Roberts, a resident of Claiborne County; Barbara Rigdon, a resident of Lauderdale County; Martha Via, a resident of Rankin County; Becky Kirkland, a resident of Amite County; and Alinda White, a resident of Amite County ("plaintiffs"), alleged that each of them entered into contracts with some of the defendants,1 appointing them as independent agents for the purpose of selling insurance. They alleged that, even though they were good producers for the various companies, they were prevented from expanding their businesses, as promised, subjected to unfair treatment because they were women, and experienced undue pressure, harassment, discrimination, misdeeds and interference. More specifically, the complaint states the following causes of action:
1. Breach of contract: Defendants failed to provide assistance and support necessary to develop and maintain their businesses as promised; refused to allow plaintiffs to operate as independent agents as promised; failed and refused to perform their obligations under the contracts; prevented plaintiffs from performing their duties as assigned; subjected plaintiffs to verbal and emotional abuse; thwarted the plaintiffs' efforts to produce and operate their businesses; effectuated a constructive discharge of the plaintiffs and breached the relationships and contracts between the parties.
2. Tortious bad faith breach of contract: Defendants intentionally caused plaintiffs' businesses to fail and defendants' actions were oppressive, fraudulent and malicious.
3. Fraud, intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation: Defendants represented to plaintiffs that their compensation would be based on commissions, yet intended to undermine plaintiffs' abilities to receive commissions by stealing clients and switching accounts.
4. Conspiracy: Defendants conspired to steal plaintiffs' clients so that defendants, not plaintiffs, would receive the commissions.
5. Intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
¶ 3. The circuit court denied the defendants' motion to sever, and the defendants requested permission to file an interlocutory appeal to this Court, which granted the request.
¶ 4. Rule 20(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provides that two or more plaintiffs may join their claims in one cause of action if the claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and if there is any common question of law or fact.2 Both of these prongs of Rule 20(a) must be met in order to deny a motion for severance. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories v. Caldwell, 905 So.2d 1205, 1207, (Miss.2005).
¶ 5. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 20 gives trial courts broad discretion in determining when and how to try claims. Id. Therefore, appellate courts review trial court decisions regarding venue and joinder for abuse of discretion. Id. Cases involving a question of the propriety of Rule 20(a) joinder are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Id. Before an alleged "transaction or occurrence" will pass muster under Rule 20(a), an appellate court must find a "distinct litigable event linking the parties." Id. at 1208. Another important consideration in deciding if joinder is appropriate is whether the proof presented to the jury would be confusing due to the multiplicity of the facts. Id. at 1209. We have held:
[The determination of whether a distinct litigable event linking the parties exists] includes, among other things, whether a finding of liability for one plaintiff essentially establishes a finding for all plaintiffs, indicating that proof common to all plaintiffs is significant. The appropriateness of joinder decreases as the need for additional proof increases. If plaintiffs allege a single, primary wrongful act, the proof will be common to all plaintiffs; however separate proof will be required where there are several wrongful acts by several different actors. The need for separate proof is lessened only where the different wrongful acts are similar in type and character, and occur close in time and/or place.
Ill. Cent. R.R. v. Gregory, 912 So.2d 829, 834-35 (Miss.2005).
¶ 6. The defendants argue that joinder is improper in this case because:
(1) Each plaintiff entered into a separate contract with different insurance companies selling different types of insurance.
(2) The contracts were entered into at different times.
(3) The contracts were entered into in different counties (except for White and Kirkland, residents of Amite County who both entered into their separate contracts in Amite County).
(4) Each plaintiff worked for a different manager (with the exception noted above).
(5) Each plaintiff alleges a different set of facts.
(6) Each plaintiff would require different witnesses to prove her case.
(7) The circumstances underlying each plaintiff's resignation are separate and distinct.
The defendants also contend the only commonalities between the plaintiffs' allegations are that they were each dissatisfied with their employment and they each sold insurance for a Farm Bureau insurance company. The plaintiffs add that the contract signed by each of them is substantially the same contract.
¶ 7. The plaintiffs all allege breach of contract, negligent and intentional torts, conspiracy, and fraud; however, they worked under different supervisors in different locations, and were subject to several different alleged circumstances at different times. Inasmuch as proof of the fraud and conspiracy claims alone would require intricate factual narratives and multiple witnesses, the amount of evidence that would have to be introduced to prove all the claims in one trial would certainly overwhelm a jury. It is important to note that no plaintiff has claims against every defendant.
¶ 8. The only alleged distinct litigable events which could tie together the plaintiffs claims against the defendants are the fraud and conspiracy claims. The complaint, however, does not state any specific facts to support such claims. In their depositions, the plaintiffs make vague, conclusory statements about Farm Bureau forcing out long-term agents so the managers can reap the rewards of the agents' hard work. These same issues were discussed in a recent severance case, MS Life Ins. Co. v. Baker, 905 So.2d 1179 (Miss. 2005), in which we held that severance was appropriate because:
Though the forty-five plaintiffs in this case have lodged multifarious complaints of deception by Mississippi Life in their pleadings, motions, and briefs, they have failed to present any evidence which specifically identified any common misrepresentation to all plaintiffs by Mississippi Life, either written or oral....
Id. at 1155-86. The Baker court quoted with favor McLernon v. Source Int'l, Inc., 701 F.Supp. 1422 (E.D.Wis.1988), as follows:
In order to satisfy Rule 20(a), [plaintiffs] must allege that their claims arise from one or more uniform misrepresentations. To do so, they must specifically identify which representations and/or omissions, if any, were made to all plaintiffs. If the representation was written, the writing in which the representation appeared and the date of publication must be set forth. That plaintiffs' claims may be premised on oral misrepresentations does not preclude joinder, provided plaintiffs allege that the substance of the oral representations was standardized....
701 F.Supp. at 1425-26 (emphasis in original).
¶ 9. We find the plaintiffs have woefully failed to provide sufficient facts to prove their claims of fraud and conspiracy can withstand severance. To meet the above standards, there should be a showing that all of the plaintiffs' managers had a common plan in place prior to the hiring of the plaintiffs to induce the plaintiffs to work hard and sell insurance policies with recurring premiums and then force the plaintiffs to resign so the managers could receive the percentage of the recurring premiums.
¶ 10. Therefore, we find the circuit court erred in denying the defendants' motion to sever because the plaintiffs cannot show a distinct litigable event; and because all the actions complained of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. Direct Gen. Ins. Co. of Miss.
...in determining how to try claims, and such determinations are properly reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Mississippi Farm Bureau Fed. v. Roberts, 927 So. 2d 739, 741 (Miss. 2006). Moreover, when considering the propriety of a party's Rule 20(a) joinder in the fraudulent misjoinder context, ......
-
Howard v. Direct Gen. Ins. Co.
...in determining how to try claims, and such determinations are properly reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Mississippi Farm Bureau Fed. v. Roberts, 927 So. 2d 739, 741 (Miss. 2006). Moreover, when considering the propriety of a party's Rule 20(a) joinder in the fraudulent misjoinder context, ......
-
Robinson v. Direct Gen. Ins. Co. of Miss.
...in determining how to try claims, and such determinations are properly reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Mississippi Farm Bureau Fed. v. Roberts, 927 So. 2d 739, 741 (Miss. 2006). Moreover, when considering the propriety of a party's Rule 20(a) joinder in the fraudulent misjoinder context, ......
-
Creel v. Bridgestone/Firestone No. Am. Tire
...joinder and venue determinations and will not reverse unless we find the trial court has abused its discretion. Miss. Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Roberts, 927 So.2d 739, 741 (Miss.2006). The retroactive application of judicially enunciated rules is governed by the United States Supreme Court's dec......