164 So. 3d 1028
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- Bar-Til Inc. sued for unpaid work on a Pull-A-Part project; chancellor denied punitive damages.
- Bar-Til contracted with Superior Asphalt, with subsequent verbal and written scope increases and change orders.
- Supervised by Superior’s project managers; FEMA requirements and drainage issues revealed need for more dirt than planned.
- Bar-Til performed additional work; Superior ceased paying invoices totaling $156,972.50; Bar-Til completed project but was not paid.
- Bar-Til sought punitive damages for bad faith; amendment to include punitive damages allowed, with caution about proceedings.
- Chancellor found breach but no bad faith or fiduciary breach; awarded compensatory/quantum meruit and denied punitive damages; final judgment later amended for clerical error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the chancellor err by not bifurcating bad faith and punitive damages for a second trial? | Bar-Til—bifurcation required; second hearing needed if compensatory damages found. | No separate second hearing necessary; evidence could be presented during five-day trial. | No abuse; no requirement for a second trial on punitive damages. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to support punitive damages under Mississippi law? | Bar-Til showed bad faith/malice warranting punitive damages. | No clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or gross disregard. | No, the record lacked the required evidentiary basis for punitive damages. |
| Was the chancellor's interpretation of bifurcation and punitive-damages procedure correct under §11-1-65? | Mississippi law requires bifurcated proceedings when punitive damages are sought. | Procedural approach allowed consideration within the overall trial; no mandatory bifurcation. | Correct; no second hearing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurst v. Sw. Miss. Legal Servs. Corp., 708 So.2d 1347 (Miss. 1998) (punitive damages discretionary; relied on clear and convincing evidence of malice or gross disregard)
- Warren v. Derivaux, 996 So.2d 729 (Miss. 2008) (punitive damages require egregious conduct; narrow limits)
- Hamilton v. Hopkins, 834 So.2d 695 (Miss. 2003) (preconditions for punitive damages; intentional wrong or malicious/reckless conduct)
- Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Murphree, 653 So.2d 857 (Miss. 1994) (totality of circumstances; malice or gross negligence needed for punitive award)
- Par Indus. Inc. v. Target Container Co., 708 So.2d 44 (Miss. 1998) (evidence review on findings of fact; defer to chancellor’s credibility)
- Faul v. Perlman, 104 So.3d 148 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (Rule 59/60 reconsideration guidance; timing affects scope of review)
- Granger v. State, 853 So.2d 830 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (proffer requirement for evidence excluded at trial)
- Hamilton v. Hopkins, 834 So.2d 695 (Miss. 2003) (punitive damages require intentional or malicious conduct)