Bowden v. Young
120 So. 3d 971
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs Blackmore and Young sued their former law firm Vaughn, Bowden, PA (V&B) and Lowry Development for mold exposure, sewer gas, and a natural gas leak in two Gulfport offices (A owned by Lowry, B leased from Lowry).
- The buildings suffered moisture intrusion; mold levels were later documented, and OSHA involvement occurred; a mold report (October Lab Report) showed elevated mold concerns.
- Plaintiffs asserted battery, IIED, nuisance, failing to remediate, conspiracy, aiding/abetting, and loss of consortium claims against V&B and Lowry.
- V&B argued MWCA exclusivity for unintentional torts and a one-year limitations bar for alleged intentional torts; suit filed March 11, 2011 (more than a year after injuries). Trial court denied motions to dismiss; this Court granted interlocutory review to evaluate those rulings.
- Court held plaintiffs failed to plead acts with actual intent to injure; MWCA exclusive remedy applies; did not adopt a broader “substantially certain to injure” standard; Lowry’s interlocutory appeal dismissed; case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether V&B claims escape MWCA exclusivity. | Blackmore/Young contend intentional torts fall outside MWCA. | V&B argues exclusive remedy and timeliness bar. | No; no actual intent shown; claims remain within MWCA. |
| Whether Mississippi should adopt a broader intent standard (substantially certain to injure). | Franklin concurrence supports broader intent. | Franklin precedent controls; no expansion. | Rejected; stays with actual-intent standard. |
| Whether conspiracy/aiding/abetting and nuisance claims survive given underlying flaws. | Claims depend on surviving intentional torts. | Without actual intent, derivative claims fail. | Dismissed as a matter of law. |
| Whether Lowry’s interlocutory appeal should be allowed or dismissed. | Lowry argues intentional torts governed by 1-year limit. | Appeal improper; issues not fully developed. | Dismissed; remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Futorian Corp., 533 So.2d 461 (Miss. 1988) (exclusive-remedy to MWCA; willful acts must show actual intent to injure)
- Peaster v. David New Drilling Co., 642 So.2d 344 (Miss. 1994) (gross negligence not enough to remove from MWCA; no substantial-certainty standard)
- Blailock v. O’Bannon, 795 So.2d 533 (Miss. 2001) (actual intent to injure can remove from MWCA; negligent or grossly negligent conduct not enough)
- Franklin Corp. v. Tedford, 18 So.3d 215 (Miss. 2009) (actual intent required to fall outside MWCA; substantial-certainty rejected (majority opinion))