Fulton v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.
105 So. 3d 284
Miss.2012Background
- Fulton alleged Farm Bureau delayed investigation and payment of uninsured-motorist benefits after an accident at a race track.
- Jury found Farm Bureau negligent in delaying payout/investigation but did not find gross negligence, bad faith, or punitive damages.
- Jury awarded $10,000 in extracontractual damages for the delay, and no punitive damages.
- Fulton sought post-judgment attorney’s fees, costs, and interest totaling about $120,773 under Rule 59(e).
- Circuit court denied the motion under Rule 59(e); Court of Appeals reversed, finding fees collateral to final judgment and outside Rule 59(e).
- Mississippi Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeals, holding there is no independent post-judgment right to attorney’s fees here and reinstated the circuit court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 59(e) governs post-judgment attorney’s fees | Fulton argues fees are collateral and outside Rule 59(e). | Farm Bureau contends fees are collateral but not governed by Rule 59(e). | Rule 59(e) governs post-judgment attorney’s fees. |
| Whether Fulton had a post-judgment right to attorney’s fees | Fulton asserts independent right to fees despite no punitive damages. | Farm Bureau argues lack of statutory/contractual basis and no punitive damages defeats right to fees. | No post-judgment right absent statute/contract or punitive damages. |
| Whether extracontractual damages independently support attorney’s fees | Extracontractual damages justify attorney’s fees similar to punitive-damages grounds. | Extracontractual damages do not independently justify fees without punitive damages. | Extracontractual damages do not independently support fees when punitive damages are not awarded. |
| Whether Veasley creates an independent right to post-judgment attorney’s fees | Veasley allows fees without punitive damages under certain circumstances. | Veasley does not authorize post-judgment fees atop extracontractual damages in this context. | Veasley does not create an independent post-judgment fee right here. |
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the motion under Rule 59(e) | Fulton contends the denial was improper given collateral nature of fees. | Farm Bureau argues no independent basis and failed to meet Rule 59(e) criteria. | Circuit court did not abuse its discretion; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruce v. Bruce, 587 So.2d 898 (Miss. 1991) (post-judgment fee reassessment lacks independent grounds when none exist)
- Veasley, 610 So.2d 290 (Miss. 1992) (extracontractual damages may exist without punitive damages, but not to justify post-judgment fees here)
- Lisanby v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 47 So.3d 1172 (Miss. 2010) (extracontractual damages may be available where insurer acts in bad faith with arguable basis)
- Cook v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 832 So.2d 474 (Miss. 2002) (punitive damages create independent basis for attorney’s fees; not controlling here)