Greenwood v. Mesa Underwriters Specialty Ins. Co.

• Citation: 179 So.3d 1082
• Decision Date: 10 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2014–IA–00197–SCT.,2014–IA–00197–SCT.
• Parties: William GREENWOOD d/b/a Antique Wood Company of Mississippi v. MESA UNDERWRITERS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Central Insurers of Grenada, Inc. and Dixie Specialty Insurance, Inc.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

179 So.3d 1082

William GREENWOOD d/b/a Antique Wood Company of Mississippi
v.
MESA UNDERWRITERS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Central Insurers of Grenada, Inc. and Dixie Specialty Insurance, Inc.

No. 2014–IA–00197–SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 10, 2015.

179 So.3d 1083

Seth Clayton Little, Chuck McRae, attorneys for appellant.

Thomas Lynn Carpenter, Jr., Carr Allison, Kathryn Breard Platt, Gulfport, attorneys for appellees.

EN BANC.

KITCHENS, Justice, for the Court:

¶ 1. After a lawsuit was filed against William Greenwood, doing business as Antique Wood Company of Mississippi, Greenwood's insurers, located in Rankin County and Grenada County, denied indemnity coverage. Greenwood sued the insurers in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, alleging breach of contract, conspiracy, and bad

179 So.3d 1084

faith. Following a grant of a motion for change of venue to the defendants, Greenwood filed the instant petition for interlocutory appeal, which this Court granted. Greenwood asserted that venue was proper in Warren County. We agree and reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County and remand the case for transfer to the Circuit Court of Warren County.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. William Greenwood owned Antique Wood Company of Mississippi (Greenwood), which was in the business of buying salvage rights to old buildings for the purpose of stripping and selling the buildings' lumber, bricks, and other materials. Greenwood obtained salvage rights to a Vicksburg postbellum building¹ built in 1868 and sought a policy of insurance to cover "debris removal." Central Insurers of Grenada, Inc. (Grenada), and Dixie Specialty Insurance, Inc. (Dixie), obtained policies on behalf of Greenwood through Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company (Mesa), formerly known as Montpelier U.S. Insurance Company (Montpelier).

¶ 3. Greenwood's dismantling of the building resulted in a lawsuit filed by adjoining building owners, who claimed that damage had resulted "to an adjacent building and wall." One of the adjoining business owners had "requested the demolition be stopped as it was damaging and would continue to damage the adjacent property." Ultimately, the owners said, "the additional demolition caused substantial damage to the adjacent building." A coverage investigation by Montpelier resulted in a denial of coverage:

Our investigation revealed several issues concerning coverage. The investigation revealed that you owned the building at the time you took out the policy and did not choose to insure the property at that time. The signed application states that your business is 100% debris removal. You told the inspector that spoke to [you] concerning your business that you only pick up legal landfill debris. The policy was written for debris removal only not the taking down of buildings. Furthermore, the building was owned by you and the resultant damage would arise out of the ownership, use[,] and maintenance of the premises you own, of which we do not insure and were never put on notice [ ]. For these reasons and the provisions in the policy we are unable to provide[ ] indemnity or defense for the above mentioned claim.

Aggrieved by the denial of coverage for indemnity or defense, Greenwood sued Mesa (then Montpelier), Grenada, and Dixie, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, alleging breach of contract, conspiracy, and bad faith.

¶ 4. Mesa and Dixie filed a motion to transfer venue on October 31, 2013, arguing that Rankin County was the proper county for venue purposes under Mississippi Code Section 11–11–3(1)(a)(i) (Rev.2004),² because the in-state defendants,

179 So.3d 1085

Dixie and Grenada, were located in Rankin and Grenada Counties, respectively.³ Greenwood responded to the motion to transfer venue by arguing that venue was proper in Warren County because the events giving rise to the claim which resulted in the denial of coverage took place there.

¶ 5. The trial court ruled that Warren County was not a proper venue because "the substantial act was the denial of the claim, which occurred in Rankin County, not the alleged building demolition in Warren County." The trial court also ruled that Greenwood's venue options against Dixie and Grenada were Rankin County or Grenada County. Greenwood filed an interlocutory appeal on February 13, 2014, which was granted by a panel of this Court on April 16, 2014.

¶ 6. The sole interlocutory issue before this Court is whether the trial court erred in its determination that venue was not proper in Warren County and was proper only in Rankin or Grenada Counties.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 7. "We review ‘a trial court's grant or denial of a motion for change of venue for an abuse of discretion, but questions of law, such as interpretation of the general venue statute, are reviewed de novo.’ " Wood v. Safeway Ins. Co., 114 So.3d 714, 716 (Miss.2013) (quoting Laurel Ford Lincoln–Mercury, Inc. v. Blakeney, 81 So.3d 1123, 1125 (Miss.2012) ).

DISCUSSION

¶ 8. The Mississippi venue statute provides four permissible venue options for "[c]ivil actions of which the circuit court has original jurisdiction": (1) "the county where the defendant resides," or (2) "if a corporation, [ ] the county of its principal place of business," or (3) "the county where a substantial alleged act or omission occurred" or (4) the county "where a substantial event that caused the injury occurred." Miss.Code Ann. § 11–11–3(1)(a)(i) (Rev.2004). Greenwood maintains on interlocutory appeal that Warren County is a proper venue under the statute...