Hegwood v. Williamson
| Decision Date | 04 January 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 2005-IA-02194-SCT.,2005-IA-02194-SCT. |
| Citation | 949 So.2d 728 |
| Parties | Ansley Ragan HEGWOOD v. Mindy Dawn WILLIAMSON. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Jeremy T. Hutto, Philip W. Gaines, Jackson, attorneys for appellant.
Curt Crowley, attorney for appellee.
EN BANC.
¶ 1. After an automobile accident with Ansley Ragan Hegwood, Mindy Dawn Williamson sued Hegwood and her liability insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. At the completion of discovery, Hegwood filed a motion to sever Williamson's claims against Hegwood and State Farm; a hearing was held and the circuit court denied the motion without explanation. We granted Hegwood permission to bring this appeal. See M.R.A.P. 5. The sole issue before us is whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Hegwood's motion to sever. We find that the circuit court did abuse its discretion, reverse the order denying the motion to sever, and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
¶ 2. Williamson alleges that Hegwood was at fault, and Hegwood alleges that Williamson was at fault. Both of the women were insured by State Farm. Hegwood had an automobile liability policy with State Farm, while Williamson had a comprehensive automobile policy with State Farm. Since Hegwood's liability policy alone would not cover the entire amount of damages, Williamson filed two separate claims, one for property damage and medical payments under her policy with State Farm and a third-party claim for bodily injury and medical expenses under Hegwood's liability policy.
¶ 3. State Farm assigned two adjusters to the claims, one for each of Williamson's claims. Williamson alleges that the adjuster assigned to her first party contract claim told the adjuster assigned to her third party claim against Hegwood that Williamson admitted to being fifty percent at fault for the auto accident. As a result, Williamson filed breach of contract and bad faith claims against State Farm. Williamson denies ever making such a statement.
¶ 4. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) provides that "[a]ll persons may be joined in one action as Defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, and if any question of law or fact common to all Defendants will arise in the action." Both prongs of Rule 20(a) must be met in order to deny a motion for severance. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. v. Caldwell, 905 So.2d 1205, 1207 (Miss.2005).
¶ 5. Rule 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 "occurrence" will be sufficient to meet Rule 20(a)'s two factors, there must be a "distinct litigable event linking the parties." Id. at 1208. To determine if a distinct litigable event linking the parties exists, courts should consider:
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). Also, when determining if joinder is appropriate, it is important to consider whether the proof presented to the jury would be confusing due to the multiplicity of facts. Caldwell, 905 So.2d at 1209.
¶ 6. We find that the circuit court should have severed the claims. The third party tort claim against Williamson and the first party breach of contract and bad faith claims involve distinct litigable events. The claims against Williamson and State Farm arise out of separate allegations of wrongdoing occurring at separate times. While it is true that the genesis of both claims arose out of the accident, the two claims involve different factual issues and different legal issues. The car accident raises fact issues of how the accident occurred and legal issues of simple negligence (duty, breach of duty, proximate causation, and damages). The breach of contract and bad faith claims raise fact issues of what occurred between the two insurance adjusters and how they made their decisions and legal issues of interpretation of insurance policies and bad faith under which an award of punitive damages may or may not be appropriate. The negligence claim would be proven by different witnesses (the two drivers, eyewitnesses to the accident, law enforcement, and accident re-enactment experts) from that of the bad faith claim (insurance agents and management).
¶ 7. More importantly, Rule 411 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence provides that "[e]vidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palermo v. Letourneau Technologies, Inc.
...Smith did not appear to be consistent with the Mississippi Supreme Court's later opinion in Mercer. Id. at *6 n. 2. In Hegwood v. Williamson, 949 So.2d 728 (Miss.2007), the Mississippi Supreme Court again confronted an interlocutory appeal on a joinder issue involving an automobile accident......
-
Flores-Duenas v. Briones
...a similar decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court interpreting that rule. See 2009 WL 2767679, at *2-4 (citing Hegwood v. Williamson, 949 So. 2d 728 (Miss. 2007)). Further, even assuming away the vertical choice of law issue, Willingham v. State Farm Insurance Co. still would not change t......
-
Sullivan v. Direct Gen. Ins. Co. of Miss.
...satisfy the two factors required under Rule 20(a), "there must be a 'distinct litigable event linking the parties.'" Hegwood v. Williamson, 949 So. 2d 728, 730 (Miss. 2007) (quoting Wyeth-Ayerst, 905 So.2d at 1208). Whether a "distinct litigable event" exists is determined by considering th......
-
Walker v. Tiffany Scales & Safeway Ins. Co.
...will be sufficient to meet Rule 20(a)'s two factors, there must be a distinct litigable event linking the parties." Hegwood v. Williamson, 949 So. 2d 728, 730 (Miss. 2007) (internal citations omitted). In determining whether a distinct litigable event exists, the Mississippi Supreme Court h......