Pioneer Life Ins. Co. of Illinois v. Moss, 56629

• Decision Date: 30 September 1987
• Docket Number: No. 56629,56629
• Citation: 513 So.2d 927
• Parties: PIONEER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS v. Shirley F. MOSS.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 927

513 So.2d 927

PIONEER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS v. Shirley F. MOSS.

No. 56629.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 30, 1987.

Arthur F. Jernigan, Gerald, Brand, Watters, Cox & Hemleben, Jackson, for appellant.

Rex Gordon, Sr., David C. Frazier, Gordon, Myers & Frazier, Pascagoula, Gerald Dickerson, Lucedale, for appellee.

Before WALKER, C.J., and ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ.

WALKER, Chief Justice, for the Court:

This case is before the Court on appeal from the Circuit Court of George County, Mississippi where, on November 9, 1984 a jury returned a verdict in favor of Shirley Moss and against Pioneer Life Insurance Company in the amount of $100.00 actual damages and $50,000.00 punitive damages. From this adverse decision, Pioneer Life Insurance Company appeals.

FACTS

On March 20, 1981, Pioneer Life Insurance Company of Illinois (hereinafter "Pioneer Life") issued a medical insurance policy to Shirley F. Moss (hereinafter "Mrs. Moss"). On February 7, 1982, while the policy was in effect, Mrs. Moss was admitted to Singing River Hospital suffering from chest pains. Mrs. Moss was confined at Singing River Hospital from February 7th through February 10th while diagnostic tests were performed. The discharge summary of Singing River Hospital recorded the results of the testing, including an echocardiogram, disclosing that Mrs. Moss was diagnosed as having a prolapsing mitral valve. On March 26, 1982, Mrs. Moss filed her claim form with Pioneer Life, but because the hospital chart was incomplete, Pioneer Life was unable to complete its processing until June 1, 1982. The medical expenses submitted by Mrs. Moss are set forth in tabular form below:

                MEDICAL PROVIDER     DATE OF TREATMENT  EXPENSES SUBMITTED
                -------------------  -----------------  ------------------
                Singing River Hosp.         2/7 - 2/10           $1,114.62
                Dr. Samuel Simmons          2/2 - 2/12              212.00
                Mobile Infirmary                  2/10              170.00
                

On June 14, 1982, a claims adjuster for Pioneer Life, after reviewing the medical records calculated the maximum benefits available to Mrs. Moss under her medical insurance policy. The medical expenses submitted and the benefits paid in June 1982 are set forth in tabular form below:

                MEDICAL PROVIDER     BENEFITS PAID  EXPENSES SUBMITTED
                -------------------  -------------  ------------------
                Singing River Hosp.        $821.64           $1,114.62
                Dr. Samuel Simmons           30.00              212.00
                Mobile Infirmary              ----              170.00
                                     -------------  ------------------
                TOTAL                      $851.64           $1,496.62
                

The adjuster did not calculate any benefits toward the Mobile Infirmary bill of $170.00 for an echocardiagram test on February 10, (which, as shall be seen subsequently is the focal point of this action), in that, based upon her review of the records and claim forms, she believed the $170.00 bill was for professional component charges to analyze the results of an echocardiagram test performed on an in-patient basis at Singing River Hospital on February 10th, and therefore was not a covered benefit under the policy. This belief stemmed from the fact that both the date of discharge from Singing River Hospital and the date the bill from Mobile Infirmary were February 10, 1982. Additionally, the discharge summary from Singing River Hospital included as a component the echocardiagram test. Unbeknownst to Pioneer Life, what had actually transpired was that Mrs. Moss was discharged from Singing River Hospital on February 10th, whereupon she went directly to the Mobile Infirmary in Mobile, Alabama. On that same date, Mobile Infirmary performed the echocardiagram on an out-patient basis, (which Pioneer Life now admits, and at the trial below admitted, to be a covered expense under the policy provisions up to $100.00).

Due to Pioneer Life's failure to make payment on the Mobile Infirmary bill, Mrs. Moss began to receive letters and phone calls demanding payment, first from Mobile Infirmary and subsequently from bill collectors. In an effort to resolve the situation, Mrs. Moss contacted Pioneer Life on several occasions through letters and by telephone inquiring as to the status of the claim. Pioneer Life's response was that the maximum benefits available under the policy had already been paid. Thereafter, Mrs. Moss retained counsel to assist her in procuring payment of her outstanding debts. Said counsel sent three (3) letters to Pioneer Life regarding Mrs. Moss, and Pioneer Life received said letters on December 7, 1982, January 4, 1983, and January 12, 1983. The first and second letters, simply put, requested that Pioneer Life advise Mrs. Moss of the status of the claim. The third letter informed Pioneer Life that their insured was being harassed for payment by a collection agency, and asked directly, "All I want to know from you is whether you are going to pay these long past due claims or not." Pioneer Life responded to each letter on December 23, 1982, January 24, 1983, and February 16, 1983. The three (3) response letters, in essence, stated the figures that can be found in the second table previously set out in this discussion, and that such amounted to the maximum benefit allowed. Said letters contained a standard closing clause that, "We sincerely hope this letter answers your questions in regard to this; however, if you should have further questions or comments regarding this claim, please contact us."

On July 22, 1983, Mrs. Moss filed her complaint against Pioneer Life seeking contract damages in the amount of $248.00, (including an element of the Singing River bill not an element of this appeal), and punitive damages in the amount of $150,000.00. It was at this time that Pioneer Life first learned of the fact that Mrs. Moss had been discharged from Singing River Hospital on February 10, 1982, and taken directly to Mobile Infirmary, where the echocardiagram was performed on an out-patient basis. Pioneer Life immediately offered to pay the entire balance of any outstanding medical bills, plus expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees up to that point. The offer was refused. Pioneer Life then filed an answer admitting it owed $100.00 and tendered such to the clerk of the court.

On November 9, 1984, a trial on the merits was heard before a jury in the Circuit Court of George County, Mississippi, for which a judgment was rendered against Pioneer Life in the sum of $100.00 actual damages for the amount owed under the policy for the out-patient treatment at Mobile Infirmary, and $50,000.00 as punitive damages. From this adverse decision, Pioneer appeals, making six (6) assignments of error, of which only one (1) merits discussion.

I. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN SUBMITTING TO THE JURY THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES?

This Court has grappled with the problem of the submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury ever since Standard Life Insurance Company of Indiana v. Veal, 354 So.2d 239 (Miss.1977) was handed down. In Veal, this Court stated, in regard to the imposition of punitive damages in a bad faith context that:

If an insurance company has a legitimate reason or an arguable reason for failing to pay a claim, punitive damages will not lie.

Veal, at 248. But, the question of the proper manner in which to submit to the jury the punitive damages issue went unanswered.

Reserve Life Insurance Co. v. McGee, 444 So.2d 803 (Miss.1983) answered the question, to some extent, by holding that the trial court must first determine as a matter of law whether the issue of punitive damages should be submitted to the jury. In McGee, the Court held, in pertinent part, that:

At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court at the request of the defendant, should determine whether or not, as a question of law, the insurer had a legitimate or arguable reason to deny payment of the claim. ... If the trial court finds that such a legitimate or arguable claim existed, as shown by the evidence, then the trial court should refuse to grant a punitive damages instruction even though it submits to the jury the question of whether or not the insurer owed the compensatory claim for which proofs of loss were filed.

McGee, at 809. Therefore, the issue of punitive damages should not reach the jury unless reasonable minds could differ as to the insurance company having a legitimate or arguable reason for denying the claim. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mississippi, Inc. v. Campbell, 466 So.2d 833 (Miss.1984).

Still, even with the guidance of the above cited authorities, there remains to this day much confusion and misunderstanding in the lower courts as to when the punitive damage issue is to be presented to the jury based upon the "legitimate or arguable reason" standard. In trying to remedy this situation, we find guidance and authority in State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Simpson, 477 So.2d 242 (Miss.1985), where we stated, in addressing this standard that:

We are of the opinion the term "legitimate or arguable reason," although spawning much comment in our cases and in briefs and arguments of counsel, is nothing more than an expression indicating the act or acts of the alleged tortfeasor do not rise to the heightened level of an independent tort. Additionally, the very term expresses the holding of this Court establishing a distinction between ordinary torts, the product of forgetfulness, oversight, or the like; and heightened torts which are the product of gross, callous or wanton conduct, or, if intentional are accompanied by fraud or deceit. (citation omitted) (emphasis added)

Simpson at 250.

As previously mentioned, Standard Life v. Veal, supra, provides that if an insurance company has a legitimate or arguable reason for denying a claim, then such will utterly preclude the submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury. But, the contrary of this statement is not true. The fact that an insurance...