Lairy v. Chandler
| Decision Date | 05 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2019-CA-01423-COA |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ANGELA T. LAIRY, TURNER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, CAROLYN T. KARRIEM AND THE ESTATE OF BENNIE L. TURNER APPELLANTS v. LORI CHANDLER APPELLEE |
BEFORE WILSON, P.J., GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.
¶1. Lori Chandler sued the law firm of Turner & Associates PLLC, the estate of the firm's deceased former managing partner (Bennie Turner), another attorney with the firm (Angela T. Lairy), and a non-lawyer case manager at the firm (Carolyn Karriem) for legal malpractice after the law firm failed to file her workers' compensation claim within the statute of limitations. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Chandler and against all defendants on the issue of liability. Following a bench trial on damages, the trial court found that all defendants were jointly and severally liable for compensatory damages of $50 000 and that Karriem was liable for punitive damages of $100, 000 because she had committed fraud in an effort to conceal the failure to file Chandler's claim.
¶2. On appeal, the defendants argue that the trial court erred by granting partial summary judgment against Lairy on the issue of liability; that the trial judge's award of compensatory damages is not supported by substantial evidence; and that the trial judge erred by not considering Karriem's net worth in awarding punitive damages. We conclude that the trial court erred by granting partial summary judgment against Lairy and that there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court's award of compensatory damages. Therefore, we reverse and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion on those issues. However, we affirm the award of punitive damages against Karriem.
¶3. Chandler worked for Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. as a forklift driver. In March 2008, she was injured at work when another forklift hit her forklift from behind and injured her lower back and neck. Chandler's doctor told her that she could return to work but restricted her to light-duty. For three days, Chandler returned to work doing paperwork, but Cooper Tire then laid her off because it did not have any light-duty work for her.
¶4. In August 2008, Chandler approached Turner & Associates about pursuing a workers' compensation claim. Chandler testified that she met with Lairy and Karriem at the law firm's office and that Lairy agreed to file a workers' compensation claim on her behalf. In contrast, Karriem testified that she met with Chandler alone, and Lairy testified that she never met with Chandler on any occasion and never worked on Chandler's case. Chandler also testified that she and Lairy both signed a retention agreement during their initial meeting, but Chandler could not produce a copy of the agreement. The defendants also did not produce a copy of the agreement, but the firm's electronic case management system showed that Chandler had been signed up as a client in August 2008.
¶5. At the time Chandler became a client of the firm, Bennie Turner was the firm's managing attorney and sole owner. Turner remained in that role until his death in November 2012. Lairy testified that she worked at the firm as an independent contractor prior to her father's death, at which time she became the firm's managing attorney. Lairy and Karriem are sisters, and Turner is their father.
¶6. Chandler testified that she next contacted Lairy in February 2009. According to Chandler, Lairy told her that "before she could receive a settlement offer, . . . all of [her] doctor visits had [to be] completed." Chandler did not contact the law firm again in 2009 or 2010. She contacted the firm again in 2011 and began inquiring periodically regarding the status of her case and whether Cooper Tire had made a settlement offer. Unbeknownst to Chandler, the firm had never filed her workers' compensation claim, and the two-year statute of limitations had already expired.
¶7. Karriem realized at some point that the firm had not filed Chandler's claim and that the statute of limitations had expired. In April 2012, in an effort to conceal the firm's failure to file the claim, Karriem told Chandler that Cooper Tire had offered to settle her claim for $25, 000. Chandler turned down the fictitious settlement offer and told Karriem that she would check back later. In May of 2012, Karriem told Chandler that Cooper Tire had made a new settlement offer of $30, 000, but Chandler turned down that offer as well. Over the course of the next year, Karriem told Chandler that Cooper Tire had increased its offer to $35, 000, $55, 000, $60, 000, $75, 000, $85, 000, $92, 000, and $94, 000. Chandler turned down each of these fictitious offers. Chandler testified that when she visited the law firm, she always asked to speak to Lairy, but the receptionist always told her that Lairy was busy or unavailable and directed her to Karriem. Chandler testified that she finally met with Lairy again in June 2013 and that Lairy told her that Cooper Tire had increased its settlement offer to $100, 000. Chandler accepted this fictitious offer. In conflict with Chandler's testimony, Karriem testified that she alone conveyed all of the fictitious settlement offers. Lairy likewise denied any involvement in the fictitious settlement offers.
¶8. In July 2013, Karriem prepared a settlement agreement, a release, an explanation of the distribution of the settlement proceeds, and correspondence from Blake Berry at Cooper Tire that purported to document a $100, 000 settlement offer and agreement. Karriem had Chandler sign the settlement documents. Over the next few months, Chandler continued to visit the law firm and asked to talk to Lairy, but Karriem repeatedly told her that Lairy was unavailable and that they were still in the process of finalizing the settlement. Finally, in December 2013, Chandler faxed Lairy a termination letter and sought help from another attorney. Chandler then contacted Cooper Tire and learned that there was no settlement offer and that her claim had never even been filed. She also learned that "Blake Berry" did not exist and that the documents she had received from Karriem were all fakes.
¶9. In February 2014, Chandler sued Turner & Associates PLLC, the Estate of Bennie Turner, Lairy, and Karriem for legal malpractice and compensatory and punitive damages. The local circuit judges all recused, and Judge Henry Lackey was appointed to preside in the case. Prior to trial, Judge Lackey entered an order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Chandler and against all defendants on the issue of liability only. In his order, Judge Lackey concluded that it was undisputed that Chandler's workers' compensation claim was barred by the statute of limitations because of the defendants' negligence. Judge Lackey unfortunately passed away prior to the trial on damages, and Judge Larry Roberts was appointed to preside in the case.[1] The parties then waived a jury trial and proceeded to a bench trial on the issues of compensatory damages and punitive damages.
¶10. Following the compensatory-damages phase of the trial, the trial judge awarded compensatory damages of $50, 000. The trial then proceeded to a separate phase on punitive damages. At the conclusion of the evidence on punitive damages, the trial judge awarded punitive damages of $100, 000 against Karriem only. The trial judge declined to award punitive damages against Lairy because he could not find by clear and convincing evidence that she had been involved in Karriem's effort to fraudulently conceal the firm's failure to file Chandler's claim.
¶11. The defendants filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and a notice of appeal. On appeal, the defendants make three arguments. First, they argue that the trial court erred by granting partial summary judgment against all defendants on the issue of liability. The defendants' argument on this issue relies on the conflicting evidence regarding Lairy's involvement or lack of involvement in Chandler's case, so we address that particular issue and the grant of partial summary judgment only with respect to Lairy. Second, the defendants argue that the trial judge's finding that Chandler sustained compensatory damages of $50, 000 is not supported by substantial evidence. Third, the defendants argue that the trial judge erred by not considering Karriem's net worth when awarding punitive damages. We address these issues in turn.
¶12. We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Jackson, 179 So.3d 1037, 1044 (¶16) (Miss. 2015). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." M.R.C.P. 56(c). However the court must "view[] all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant" and must "presume that all evidence in the non-movant's favor is true." Downs v. Choo, 656 So.2d 84, 85 (Miss. 1995). "We consider as well that the [non-movant] is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable favorable inferences that may be drawn from the record." Burkhalter & Co v. Wissner, 602 So.2d 835, 838 (Miss. 1992). "[T]he court cannot try issues of fact on a Rule 56 motion; it may only determine whether there are issues to be tried." Brown...
To continue reading
Request your trial