361 So.3d 621
Miss.2023Background
- In 2010 Amanda Bryant (then a minor) was in a three-car collision; State Farm paid Dang and, in 2013, sued Bryant in a Leflore County subrogation action represented by Henley, Lotterhos & Henley, PLLC (HLH).
- HLH attempted service at a Minter City address; only Bryant’s father (Philip Ross Jr.) had a sheriff’s return of service; no return shows personal service on Bryant. Bryant later sent a pro se letter to HLH denying fault.
- HLH pursued discovery and a default judgment was entered in 2014 for roughly $15,260; HLH later moved to suspend Bryant’s driver’s license under §63-15-27; Bryant learned of the suspension in 2019 and was briefly incarcerated for driving on a suspended license.
- Bryant obtained counsel, had the default judgment set aside and dismissed in 2020 for lack of proper service, and then sued HLH and State Farm (negligence, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, IIED) in 2020.
- HLH moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing an attorney owes no duty to an adverse party that supports tort liability; the trial court denied relief. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted interlocutory review and reversed, rendering judgment dismissing HLH and remanding Bryant’s case against State Farm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an attorney owes a duty to an adverse party that can give rise to tort liability | Bryant: attorneys can be liable when they act in bad faith or commit egregious misconduct outside routine representation (ethics violations and procedural misrepresentations) | HLH: long-standing Mississippi precedent bars tort claims against an attorney for actions taken as counsel for an adverse party; no duty to adversary | Court: HLH, as counsel for State Farm, owed no duty to Bryant giving rise to tort liability; HLH dismissed (reversed trial court) |
| Whether Bryant’s tort claims (negligence, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, IIED) survive summary judgment | Bryant: failures in service, misrepresentations to court, and license suspension caused harm and meet elements of each tort | HLH: elements not met; professional-rule violations don’t create civil causes of action; evidentiary support is inadequate | Court: elements not satisfied as to HLH; claims dismissed against HLH |
| Procedural status of HLH’s motion (dismissal vs. summary judgment) | Bryant: trial-court may consider subrogation record as central to claims | HLH: motion was properly filed in the alternative; conversion to summary judgment invited and harmless | Court: matter treated under summary-judgment standards de novo but outcome would be same under 12(b)(6) |
| Admissibility/weight of subrogation record (accident report) as summary-judgment evidence | Bryant: accident report shows State Farm insured Bryant and shows non‑fault, supporting lack of probable cause and HLH knowledge | HLH: report was unsworn hearsay and cannot create a genuine factual dispute at summary judgment | Court: majority excluded unsworn hearsay and declined to consider Bryant’s probable-cause argument raised on appeal; dissent would have treated it as creating issues of fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Roussel v. Robbins, 688 So. 2d 714 (Miss. 1996) (an attorney owes no duty to an adverse party that would give rise to tort recovery)
- Rose v. Tullos, 994 So. 2d 734 (Miss. 2008) (malicious-prosecution claim against opposing counsel failed under those case facts; court noted threshold inquiry is at filing)
- Gilmer v. McRae, 355 So. 3d 219 (Miss. 2022) (attorneys immune from suit for acts taken in official capacities as counsel in that context)
- Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. McCullough, 212 So. 3d 69 (Miss. 2017) (elements of negligence include duty, breach, causation, and injury)
- Brown v. Credit Ctr., Inc., 444 So. 2d 358 (Miss. 1983) (summary-judgment standard: view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Mar-Jac Poultry MS, LLC v. Love, 283 So. 3d 34 (Miss. 2019) (hearsay that would be inadmissible at trial cannot be used to create a genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)