Weible v. University of Southern Mississippi
89 So. 3d 51
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dr. Weible and USM/Dr. Siders pursued a joint sick- and well-child daycare venture with USM support.
- No express contract was found; directed verdict against MTCA non-claims; bench MTCA claims tried.
- Daycare operated from 2003-2004; major disputes over control, licensing, staffing, and finances.
- Weible claimed breach of contract, detrimental reliance, misrepresentation, and torts; USM asserted lack of authority and contract formation issues.
- Implied contract found by bench trial, but court held no breach; MTCA waived only to $500,000 for implied terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was an express contract as a matter of law | Weible argues an express contract existed from multiple writings. | Siders/USM contend no written contract; authority limits prevented binding agreement. | No express contract; insufficient evidence of a signed contract. |
| Whether intentional torts are MTCA-excludable | Weible asserts malice-based torts fall outside MTCA. | Siders/USM argue MTCA applies to some tort claims. | Directed verdict proper for slander and IIED; malice-based torts remained outside MTCA. |
| Whether implied contract existed and breached under MTCA | Implied contract formed by meeting of minds and performance. | Siders/USM contend no binding implied contract or breach. | Implied contract found, but no breach; MTCA issues reserved to bench trial. |
| Whether claims of equitable/promissory estoppel and detrimental reliance survive | Estoppel theories support recovery despite lack of express contract. | Estoppel theories not shown to breach or misrepresent. | No error in dismissing equitable/promissory estoppel and detrimental reliance. |
| Whether negligent misrepresentation and NIED survive | USM misrepresented services and support; damages flowed from reliance. | No causation or misrepresentation proven; damages not shown. | Dismissed; failure to prove elements; no recoverable misrepresentation or NIED. |
Key Cases Cited
- Solanki v. Ervin, 21 So.3d 552 (Miss. 2009) (directed verdict standards; sufficiency of evidence analysis)
- City of Jackson v. Presley, 40 So.3d 520 (Miss. 2010) (trial-finding deference to bench verdicts; standard of review)
- Par Indus., Inc. v. Target Container Co., 708 So.2d 44 (Miss. 1998) (implied-contract considerations; MTCA scope)
- Wunderlich v. State Highway Commission, 184 So.2d 456 (Miss. 1938) (partial/performance evidence not to establish contract where none exists)
- Speed v. Scott, 787 So.2d 626 (Miss. 2001) (outrage element for IIED; standards for conduct)