I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - CA- 0 1 5 4 2 - S CT CAR L M I TCH ELL
v. P RO GR ES

S I VE I NS URANCE COM

P AN Y D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 31/ 2006 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. RO BERT W ALTER B AI LEY COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W AYN E COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : JE F F R E Y L Y N N E L L IS AT T ORNE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : GI NNY Y. KE NNE DY CEC I L M AI S ON H EI DEL BER G NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - I NSURANCE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D A N D R E M A N D E D - 09/ 27/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E SM I T H , C . J. , G R A V E S A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. O n N ovember27, 200 2, M i s s i s s i pp i r e s i de ntCar l M i t chel l w as i nvol ved i n an
a u t o mo b i l e a c c i d e n twi th L o u i s i a n a r e s i d e n tP a tr i c k Be n f a tt i i n Ne w Or l e a n s , L o u i s i a n a . At the s cene of

the ac ci dent , B enf

att i pr ovi ded M i t chel l w i th document at i on al l egedl y s uf f i ci ng as p roo f of a u tom o b il e ins u ran ce . O n Ja n u ary 1 6 , 2 0 0 3 , M it ch ell ’s att o rne y , K arl W i edemann, f

axed al ett ert o Pr ogr es s i ve G ul f Ins ur ance C om pany ( “Pr ogr es s i ve”) s t at i ng that B enfatt i w as not i nsured atthe t i m e o f the acci den tan d assert i ng an u ninsur ed m otor i st cl ai m agai ns tPr ogr es s i ve. ¶2. I n D ece m ber 2005, M i t chel l att empt ed t o f i l e a compl ai nt agai ns t Pr ogr es s i ve i n the C i r cui tC ourtof

W ayne Count y. T he com plai nt w as s i gned by W i edemann, a l i cens ed

### Whil e the rec ord i s s il ent asto a ctivity be twe en Januar y 16, 2003, and De ce mber 5, 1 

### 2005, Mitc hel l atte mpt s to summari zethat a ctivity in hisbrie f. Foll owing theJanuar y 16, 2 L o u isi an a a tt o rne y , an d inclu d ed h is offi ce ad d ress in N ew O rlea n s an d b ar n u m b er. W i edemann w as notl i cens ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi
. Thatc om pl ai ntw as s ubs equent l y r ef us ed by the C i r cui tC l erk of

W ayne County becaus e i tw as nots i gned by a mem berof the M i s s i s s i ppi B arand di d notevi dence a M i s s i s s i ppi B arnum ber
. I n February 2006 , M i t chel l f i l ed a
s epar at e compl ai ntagai ns tP r ogr es s i ve i n t he ci r cui tcour t . T he new compl ai ntw as s i gned b y M itch e ll’s p re se n t atto rn e y , Je ffre y L . E lli s, w h o is lice n se d to p ra c tice in M iss iss ip p i. ¶3. T her eaf

t er , Pr ogr es s i ve f

i l ed a “ M ot i on t o D i sm i ss, in t he al t ernat i ve, M ot i on f or Sum m ary J udgm ent . ” Fol l ow i ng hear i ng , the ci r cui tcourtent er ed a “ J udgm entof D ism issal” fi n d ing th at th e D ec em b er 20 0 5 co m p lai n t w as n o t lega ll y fi led a n d the F eb rua ry 2 0 0 6 c o m p la in t w a s “ fi le d b e y o n d th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s a n d . . . th e re fo re tim e b a rr e d .” F o llo w in g ju d g m e n t, M itch e ll fil e d n o tice o f a p p e a l. FACTS ¶4
. O n N o v e m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 2 , M it ch ell w as inv o lved i n a n a u to m o b ile a c c id e n t w ith L oui s i ana r es i dentB enf att i i n N ew O r l eans . A s a re s ul tof the acc i dent , M i t chel l al l eges that h e “ su sta in e d p e rso n a l i n ju ry an d p ro p e rty d a m a g e .” A t th e sc e n e o f th e a c c id e n t, B e n fa tti exhi bi t ed w hathe cl ai m ed w as pr oof of aut om obi l e i nsuranc e. O n J anuary 16, 2003, M i t chel l ’ s L oui s i ana a tt orney, W i edemann, f axed al ett ert o Pr ogr es s i ve s t at i ng, “[ i ] ti s our
u n d e rs ta n d in g th a t th e d ri v e r o f t h e v e h ic le , w h o h it M r. M itc h e ll, had no l i abi l i t y i ns ur ance atthe t i m e of

the acc i dent
. T h e r e f

o r e , M r . M i t c h e l l i s ma k i n g a c l a i m a g a i n s th i s o wn UM
ca rri er, [ P rog ressive ]
. ” (E m p h asis ad d ed ). 1

### 2003, l etter to Progres sive, Mitche llstat esthat “ Wie dem ann c onta ct ed the a djus ter f or [Progre ss ive ]
. . . and began se ttlement dis cus si ons. ” During t

hisperiod of

se ttle ment negotiati ons, Mitc hel l cl aimsthat he“ continue d to betreate d by a phys ic ian for hisinj uri es so a re soluti on to t

he cl aim wasunableto be rea che d.” Further more, he al le gesthat “ [d] ue to Hur ri cane Katrina

[on Augus t 29, 2005] thos e s ettl em ent nego tiati ons werenever ful fi ll ed. ” Ac cording to Mitch ell, Wie dem ann’ s of fi cesuf fere d si gnif

ic ant dam agefrom Hurric aneKatrina and Wiede mann “los t hi s c omputer s and ma ny of hi s ‘ paper’ fi le s . . . as a result . . . .” Initi al ly it wa s a ss igne d Caus e No. CV-2005- 212-B. 2 

### No Mississip pi B ar number o f anyattorn ey w as inclu dedin th e comp laint. 3 

### Acc ording to Progre ss ive , howe ver , “proc es s of thi s c ompl aint wa s never serve d on 4 

### Pro gressiv e or P rog ressive’s ag ent.” Caus e No. CV-2006- 22-B. 5 

### 3 ¶5. I n D ece m ber 2005, W i edemann att empt ed t o f i l e a compl ai nt agai ns t Pr ogr es s i ve on behal f of M i t chel l i n the C i r cui tC ourtof W ayne Count y. T he compl ai ntw as s i gned by 2 W i edemann, a l i cens ed Loui s i ana a tt orney, and i ncl uded hi s of f i ce a ddr es s i n N ew O r l eans
a n d L o u isia n a b a r n u m b e r. T h a t sa m e d a y , a s u m m o n s to P ro g re ss iv e w a s file d in th e c irc u it 3
court . Soon ther eaf

t er , acc or di ng t o the af

f i davi tof Rose B i ngham, Ci r cui tC l erk of W ayne 4 C ounty: 4. T he or i gi nal compl ai ntw as returned t o W i edemann & W i edemann w hen o n e o f m y c ler k s re a lize d th a t a f irm fro m L o u isia n a h a d filed it. 5. T hi s [ c] om pl ai ntw as r ef us ed by thi s of

f i ce due t o the f

actthati tw as f

i l ed b y a L o u isi an a law fi rm an d d id n o t ha v e a M iss . B ar N [o]
. Itis no lon g er a partof our r ecords. W hen W i edemann w as i nf orm ed of the def i ci ency, he w as l ef

tw i th s uf

f i ci entti m e forthe p ro p e r filin g o f th e c o m p lain t. ¶ 6
. I n F e b ru a r y 2 0 0 6 , M i t c h e l l f i l e d a n o th e r c o mp l a i n t a g a i n s t P r o g r e s s i v e i n th e s a me
c o u rt. T h is c o m p lain t w a s sig n e d b y M itch e ll’s p re se n t atto rn e y , E lli s, w h o is lice n se d to

5

### Acc ording to Mitc hel l, “there wa s no transc ript m ade of the he aring of 6 

### [Pro gressiv e’s] Motio n to Dismiss b efore th e trial court.” 4 pr act i ce i n M i s s i s s i ppi
. I n M ar ch 2006, servi ce of proc es s i n C aus e N o. C V
- 2006- 22- B w as per f ect ed thr ough the M i s s i s s i ppi C om m i s s i onerof I ns ur ance . ¶7. I n A pr i l 2006, Pr ogr es s i ve f i l ed a “M ot i on t o D i s m i s s , i n the al t ernat i ve, M ot i on f or S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t.” T h e m o tio n sta ted , in p e rtin e n t p a rt, th a t: 6. A ny act i on agai ns t[ Pr ogr es s i ve] forbenef i t s under[ M i t chel l ’ s ] pol i cy of uni ns ur ed/under i ns ur ed mot or i s tcover age s houl d have be en f i l ed atl eas tby J anuary 16, 2006. 7. [ M i t chel l ’ s ] [ c] om pl ai ntw as f i l ed on February 14, 2006. 8. T hus , [ M i t chel l ’ s ] cl ai m w as nott i m el y fi l ed and i s barr ed by the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , and t he [ c] om pl ai ntfa i l s t o st at e a cl ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef m ay be gr ant ed. I n r es pons e t o Pr ogr es s i ve’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , M i t chel l ass ert ed thathi s compl ai ntw as not t i m e- barr ed, as i t“w as f i l ed on D ece m ber5, 2005 .
. . w hi ch bea r s the f i l e s t amp of the W ayne Coun ty Ci r c ui tCl e rk’ s Of f i c e . . . . Furthe r , the s umm on s was i s s ue d and the
su m m o n s a n d th e c o m p la in t w e re se rv e d b y th e S h e riff o f W a y n e C o u n ty . . . . ” M itch e ll
ur ges , “ [ t ] he act i on w as comm ence d .
. . w hen the W ayne Count y C i r cui tC l erk acc ept [ ed] th e [c ]o m p la in t f

o r f ilin g a n d a ff

ix e d h e r s ta m p th e re to .” ¶8. Fol l ow i ng a heari ng , the ci rcui tco urtent er ed i t s “J udgm entof D i s m i s s al
. ” T he 6 ci r cui tcourtdet erm i ned thatthe D ece m ber2005 compl ai ntw as notl egal l y f i l ed bec aus e: [ f ] i r s t , the [ c] om pl ai ntw as nots i gned by [ M i t chel l ]
. Sec ond, i tw as s i gned by a n o u t o f sta te a tto rn e y , n o t li c e n se d to p ra c tice law in th e sta te o f M iss iss ip p i. T hi r d, even i f

i tw as gi ven a c aus e number , a s um m ons w as i s s ued and i tw as sta m p e d file d , th e re is n o re c o rd o f th e filing in th e C irc u it C ler k ’s o ffic e in W ayne C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi
. Four th, i f i ti s a s [ M i t chel l ] ar gues then a f or ei gn att orney coul d come i nt o a M i s s i s s i ppi [ c] ourtand f i l e anythi ng he w ant s and

### 5

the Supr eme C ourthas cl ear l y s ai d he ca nnot . U nderR ul e 11, M i ss i s s i ppi R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re a n d R u le 4 6 , M iss iss ip p i R u le s o f A p p e llate Pr ocedur e, an at t orney m us tei therbe l i cens ed t o pra ct i ce i n M i s s i s s i ppi orbe admi tt ed pr o hac vi ce . Fur ther , al l o f the ac t i ons t aken w i th the ea r l i er co m p lai n t w ere in an o ther C au se N u m b er, n o t the C au se N u m b er the [c] o u rt i s f ace d w i th t oday. In d ism iss in g M itch e ll’s c laim w ith p re ju d ice , the c irc u it co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t: [ M i t chel l ] l earned thatthe otherdr i verw as uni ns ur ed on oraboutJ anuary 16, 2003. T her ef

or e, he had unt i l Janua ry 16, 2006, t o fi l e hi s [ c] om pl ai nt . T he [ c] ourti s of

the opi ni on thatthe [ c] om pl ai nti n thi s m att erw as notl egal l y f i l ed unt i l February 14, 2006. T her ef or e, i tw as f

i l ed beyond the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons and i s ther ef or e t i m e barr ed. O n A u g u st 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , M itch e ll fil e d n o tice o f a p p e a l. I S S UES ¶9
. T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: (1) W hetherthe ci rcui tcourterred i n g rant i ng P rogres si ve’s m oti on t o d i sm i ss M itch e ll’s c o m p lain t. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 1 0
. “ W h e n c o n s id e ri n g a m o tio n to d is m is s , th is C o u rt ’s s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w is d e n o v o .” Scaggs v. GP C

H - GP , I nc. , 9 3 1 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 4 , 1 2 7 5 ( M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). See a l so Car terv. Citi gr oup, I nc. , 938 So. 2d 809, 817 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng S teph en s v. E q u ita b le L if e A ss u ra n c e S o c iety , 8 5 0 S o . 2 d 7 8 , 8 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 )) ( “[t ] h is C o u rtu ses a d e n o v o stan d ard
o f rev iew w h en p assin g o n q u esti o n s o f l aw inclu d ing statu te of li m it ati o n s issue s. ”). A N A L Y S IS ¶11. M i t chel l ar gues thathe: fi le d h is [c ]o m p la in t a g a in s t [P ro g re s s iv e ] o n D e c e m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 5 . A [ c] om pl ai ntbear i ng a f

i l e s t amp of the W ayne Count y C i r cui tCl erk’ s O f f i ce a n d th e d a te o f D e c e m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 5 , is a p a rt o f th e re c o rd . D e sp ite

### 6

[P ro g re ss iv e ’s] a ss e rtio n s to the co n tra ry , M iss iss ip p i res id e n ts h a v e a rig h t to r el y on the of

f i ci al st amp of

i t s el ect ed of

f i ci al s . T he f

i l e s t amped com pl ai nt is a ll th a t is re q u ir e d b y ru le to e s ta b lis h a filin g d a te . [M is s . R . C iv . P . 3 (a )]. O nce a [ c] om pl ai nti s f i l ed the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons r el at i ve t o the caus e of act i on i s t ol l ed. Fur therm or e, M i t chel l m ai nta i ns that“[ Pr ogr es s i ve] had not i ce of thi s cl ai m bef

or e any
s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons ex pir ed w hi ch i s the purpos e of [ M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 3( a) ]
. ” A s s uch, M i t chell contends that he “shou l d be al l ow ed t o con t i nu e w i th his cl ai m s against [P ro g re s s iv e ].” ¶ 1 2
. P ro g re ss iv e re p lies th a t “ [t] h e D e c e m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 [5 ] c o m p lain t f a iled to c o m p ly w ith R ul e 11 of

the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e and Rul e 46 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A p p e llate P ro c e d u re .” S p e c ifica lly , P ro g re ss iv e u rg e s th a t: [ t ] he Dec e mber5 , 2 00 5 c ompl a i ntwas n ota c c ompa ni e d by a ny mot i on f or admi s s i on pr o hac vi ce a n d it w a s n o t sig n e d b y a n y a tto rn e y lice n se d to p ra c tice law in M iss iss ip p i an d itw a s n o t sig n e d b y M itch e ll h im se lf. In fa c t, W i edemann’ s s ubm i s s i on of thi s c om pl ai nton hi s s i gnatur e al one cons t i tut es a n u n a u th o riz e d p ra c tice o f law
. See M
. R
. A
. P. 46( b) ( 11) ( i i i )
. A s s uch, the co m p lai n t w as p rop erly refu sed for fil ing b y th e W ay n e C o u n ty C ir cu itC o u rt an d the c o m p lai n t had n o effec t w h atso ev er. Pr ogr es s i ve f

urthernot es that“[ t ] he C l erk prompt l y r eturned the pape r s t o M r . W i edemann
a n d in fo rm e d h im o f th e d e fic ien c y w ith in su ffic ien t tim e fo r th e c o m p lain t to b e p ro p e rly f i l ed bef or e the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons expi r ed. Y et , no act i on w as t aken unt i l near l y s i x w eeks late r – u n til F e b ru a ry 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 – o n e m o n th to o late .” T h e re fo re , P ro g re ss iv e p e rsu a siv e ly
ar gues thatM i t chel l ’ s compl ai ntw as “t i m e- barr ed an d w as properl y d i sm i ssed w i th pre j udi ce b y th e c o u rtb e lo w .” ¶13. T he cr eat i on of

a s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s i s w i t hin t he provi nce a nd f unct i on of the L e g is la tu re . See Mis s . D ept . of Public Saf

et y v. Str inger , 748 S o. 2d 662, 666 ( M i s s . 1999)

### 7

( quot i ng Sm ith v. Sneed , 6 3 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 )). “T h e p ri m ary p u rpo se o f st atuto ry t i m e l i m i t at i on s i s t o co m pel the ex erci se of a r i gh tof act i on w i thin a r easona ble t i m e. T hese sta tu tes a re fo u n d e d u p o n th e g e n e ra l e x p e rie n c e o f s o c iety th a t v a lidc laim s w ill b e p ro m p tly pur s ued and notal l ow ed t o r emai n negl ect ed. ” Id
. at665. A caus e o f a ct i on agai ns tan in s u re r f o r u n in s u re d m o to ri s t b e n e fi ts is a n a c tio n o n c o n tr a c t. See E m ployers Mu t

. Cas. Co. v. T ompk ins , 490 So. 2d 897, 906 ( M i s s . 1986)
. A s s uch, a thr ee- years t atut e of lim ita tio n s p e ri o d a p p lie s . See M i s s . Code A nn. § 15- 1- 49( 1) ( R ev. 2003)
. A s both part i es
s ubm i tthi s caus e of

act i on a ccrued on J anuary 16, 2003, the C ourts hal l a cce ptthi s dat e f or its a n a ly sis . A s “ a c iv il ac tio n is c o m m e n c e d b y filin g a c o m p lain t w ith th e c o u rt[, ]” M itch e ll
w a s re q u ire d to file a c o m p lain t, i n c o m p lian c e w ith th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il Pr oc e du r e , on orbe f

or e e xp i r a t i on of

the thr e e - ye a rs t a tut e of l i mi t a t i on s . M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 3 (a). ¶14. N o di s put e exi s t s that M i t chel l att empt ed t o f i l e a compl ai nt i n t he ci r cui t courton D ece m ber5, 2005. T he i s s ue pert ai ns t o the val i di ty of t hatf i l i ng. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 46( b) ( 2) pr ovi des “[ a] f or ei gn att orney sh a ll n o t app ear i n an y cau se
exc ept as al l ow ed pr o hac vi ce underthis R ul e 46( b) .” M iss . R . A p p . P . 4 6 (b )(2 ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). In o rde r t o ap p ea r pr o hac vi ce , th e fo re ig n atto rn e y m u st a ss o c iate in th e c a u se w ith
a lo c a l a tto rn e y a n d fi le a v e ri fi e d a p p lic a tio n , c le rk ’s s ta te m e n t, a n d $ 2 0 0 fi lin g fe e . See M iss. R
. A p p . P
. 4 6 (b)(4 ) an d 4 6 (b)(5 ). M issi ssipp i R u le o f A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 46 (b) (11)( I) st at es: [ n] o co urtcl erk

o r filin g o ffic e r o f a n y a d m in istra tiv e a g e n c y o f th is s tate sh a ll acc eptorf

i l e any pleadi ngs orotherpaper s f r om a f or ei gn attorney w ho has notcom pl i ed w ith th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f th is ru le
. A ny pleadi ngs or other pa pers

### 8

f i l ed i n vi olat i on of

this r ul e s hal lbe s tr i cke n f r om the r ecord upon the m ot i on o f a ny p a rty o r b

y th e c o u rt o r a dm in istra tive a g e n c y su a sp o n te . M is s . R . A p p . P . 4 6 (b )( 1 1 )( I) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See al s o T aylorv. G ener al

Motors Cor

p. , 7 1 7 S o . 2 d 7 4 7 , 7 4 9 -5 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ); T errel l v. T schirn , 656 So. 2d 1150, 1152 ( M i s s . 1995) ( “[ b] ecaus e of

T s chi rn, Sr
. ’ s viol at i on of R ul e 46, upon pr operm ot i on by T err el l the p le a d in g s in th is c a s e w o u ld h a v e b e e n s tr ic k e n fr o m th e re c o rd .” ). B uts ee D inet v. G a v ag n ie , 9 4 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 1 , 1 2 8 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ) (f il ing w as n ev er refu sed b y the c ir cu itclerk
a n d th is C o u rt fo u n d fo re ig n co u n se l’s fa ilu re to c o m p ly w ith M iss iss ip p i R u le o f A p p e llate P roc ed u re 4 6 d id n o t w arran t dism issal i n li g h t of th e a sso ciati o n an d ap p ea ran ce o f a li ce n sed loca l attorn ey p ri o r t o d ism issal)
. M o reo v er, M ississi p p i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 1 1 (a ) p ro v id e s, in p a rt, th a t: [ e] very pl eadi ng orm ot i on of a party r epr es ent ed by an a tt orney s hal l be s i gned by atl eas tone att orney of r ecord i n thatatt orney’ s i ndi vi dual name, w h o s e a d d re s s s h a ll b e s ta te d
. . . . The s ignatur e of an a t t or ney who is not r egular l y adm i t t ed to pr act i ce i n Mis s is s i ppi , e xcepton a ver i f

i ed appl i cat i on f oradmi s s i on pr o hac vi ce , s hal lf ur therconst i tute a cer t i

f i cate by the at tor ney thatthe f or ei gn at tor ney has been adm i t t ed i n the cas e i n accordance wi th the r equi r em ent

s and l i m i tat i ons of

R ul e 46(

b) of the Mis s is s i

ppiR ul es of App el late Proc edu re . M i s s . R
. C i v. P
. 11(a ) (e m phas i s added)
. “I f a pl eadi ng orm ot i on i s nots i gned oris s igned
w i th the i nt ent

to def eat the pur pos e of this r ul e, i tm ay be s tr i cke n as s ham and f al s e, and the act i on m ay proceed as though the pleadi ng orm ot i on had notbeen s er ved
. ” M i s s . R. C iv. P. 11 (b) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶1 5. T hi s C ourtf

i nd s tha tthe D e c e mber5, 20 05 , c ompl a i ntw a s pr op e r l y r e f us e d b y the ci r cui tcl erk and s tr i cken f r om the r ecor d. M i t chell h as pre s ent ed no evi dence that W i edemann w as l i cens ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi orhad compl i ed w i th any rul e al l ow i ng a pro hacR egardi ng any argum ent by M i t chell that equi t able es t o p p el shou l d ap ply becau se 7 of H urr i cane K atr i na, Pr ogr es s i ve not es that“more than tw o and a ha l f year s of

the l i m i t at i ons per i od pas s ed betw een J anuary 16, 2003 and A ugus t29, 2005, w hen H urr i cane K atr i na s truck, yetM i t chel l t ook no act i on w i thi n thatti m e. ” A ddi t i onal l y, Pr ogr es s i ve o b se rv e s th a t “a s c h a llen g in g as itm a y h a v e b e e n , [W ied e m a n n ] w a s a b le to , a n d d id in fa c t, 

### 9 vi ce a p p e a ra n c e . See M i s s . R. A pp. P. 46. A s the D ece m ber5, 2005, c om pl ai ntw as s i gned by a Loui s i ana att orney onl y, M i s s i s s i ppi Rul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 46( b) ( 11) ( I ) pr ovi des i t“s hal l be s tr i cken f

r om the r ecor d up on the m oti on of any party orby the courtor
a d m in is tr a tiv e a g e n c y su a sp o n te .” M is s . R . A p p . P . 4 6 (b )( 1 1 )( I)
. See al s o M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 11( b) ( “[ i ] f

a pl eadi ng . . . i s si gned w i th t he i nt entt o def eatthe purpos e of

thi s rul e, i tm ay be s tr i cken as s ham and f al s e, a nd the act i on may pr ocee d as though the pl eadi ng . . . had not been s erved. ”)
. B i ngham’s af f i davi tpr ovi des t hat the compl ai ntw as r ef us ed and “ i s no l ongera partof

ourr ecor ds
. ” Thatact i on w as w el l w i thi n the s cope of author i ty gr ant ed by M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 46( b) ( 11) ( I )
. A s the s ubs equentc om pl ai ntw as not f i l ed unt i l February 14, 2006, af t ert he st atut e of

l i m i t at i ons expi r ed, thi s C ourtconcl udes that the ci r cui tcourtw as emi nent l y corr ecti n di s m i s s i ng M i t chel l ’ s cl ai m w i th pr ej udi ce. ¶ 1 6
. M itch e ll n e x t ar g u e s th a t: [a]t th e v e ry lea st th e p rin c ip les o f e q u itab le e sto p p e l sh o u ld b e a p p lied to pr event[ Pr ogr es s i ve] fr om ass ert i ng t he def ens e of s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons . T he i nact i ons of t he i ns ur ance company, des pi t e r epea t ed comm uni cat i ons f r om [ M i t chel l ] and/ orhi s r epr es ent at i ves, dem on strat e that [ P rogr es s i ve] had not i ce of thi s cl ai m and i t s def

ens es s houl d be nul l and voi d. P ro g re ss iv e re sp o n d s th a t e q u itab le e sto p p e l in th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s c o n tex t ap p lies o n ly
w h e re th e re is e v id e n c e o f “ in e q u itab le o r fra u d u len t co n d u c t[, ]” a n d “ M itch e ll’s b a ld
a ss e rtio n , rais e d fo r th e firs t tim e in th is a p p e a l, th a t h e w a s ‘s to n e w a lled ’ b y P ro g re ss iv e is
u n su p p o rte d b y a n y e v id e n c e .” M o re o v e r, P ro g re ss iv e c o n ten d s th a t “ w e re th is C o u rt to 7pr epar e and s ubm i ta compl ai ntb efor e the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons expi r ed. ” Fi nal l y, P ro g re ss iv e m a in tain s th a t “H u rric a n e K a trin a is n o t to b lam e fo r M itch e ll’s fa ilu re to a c t, u p o n re c e iv in g n o tice th e c o m p lain t h a d n o t b e e n file d , to e n su re th a t h is a c tio n w a s p ro p e rly a n d tim e ly fi le d .” 

### 10 a c c e p t M itch e ll’s [n o tice ] a rg u m e n t, a ll th a t w o u ld b e req u ire d to in d e fin itely to ll th e sta tu te
o f l im it ati o n s w o u ld b e fo r an ind ividu al t o sim p ly p u t an in su ran ce ca rri er o n n o ti ce o f a p o te n tia l c la im a n d th e n fi le it w h e n e v e r h e w is h e d .” ¶ 1 7
. T h is C o u rt h a s p re v io u sly sta ted th a t: [e]q u itab le e sto p p e l is ‘d e fin e d g e n e ra lly as the p rin c ip le b y w h ich a p a rty is pr ecl uded f

r om denyi ng any mat er i al f act , i nduced by hi s w ords orconduct upon w hi ch a per s on r el i ed, w her eby the per s on change d hi s pos i t i on i n s uch a w a y th a t in

ju ry w o u ld b e su ffe re d if su c h d e n ial o r c o n tra ry a ss e rtio n w o u ld b e s u ff e re d if s u c h d e n ia l o r c o n tr a ry a s s e rt io n w a s a llo w e d .’ D ubard v. B iloxiH

. M . A . , I nc. , 778 So. 2d 113, 114 ( M i s s . 2000) ( quot i ng K oval v. K oval , 576 So. 2d 134, 137 ( M i s s . 1991) )
. “[ E ] qui t abl e es t oppel exi s t s w her e ther e i s a ( 1) bel i ef and r el i ance on s om e r epr es ent at i on; ( 2) a cha nge of pos i t i on as a r es ul tther eof ; and ( 3) detr i m entorpr ej udi ce c aus ed by the cha nge of pos i t i on. ” B . C

. R og ers P oultr

y, I nc. v. W e d g e w o rth , 911 So. 2d 483, 492 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng Cothern v. V ickers, I nc. , 759 So. 2d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 9 ( M iss . 2 0 0 0 )). A d d iti o n a lly , “in e q u itab le o r fra u d u len t co n d u c t m ustbe
es t abl i s hed t o es t op a party f r om as s ert i ng a s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons def

ens e. ” See Str inger , 748 So. 2d at665. ¶18. N o evi dence w as s ubm i tt ed t o the ci r cui tcourtorthi s CourtthatPr ogr es s i ve engage d i n “i nequi t abl e orf

r audul entconduct [ , ] ” id
. , t ow ar d M i t chel l
. A s “[ t ] he burde n of est abli shi ng the el ement s of an es t oppel i s on the party as s ert i ng the es t oppel [ , ] ” id
. , this

### 11

C o u rtfi n d s tha t th e a b sen ce o f an y su ch ev iden ce re q u ire s a ffi rm ing the c ir cu itco u rt ’s d ism iss a l. CO NC L US I ON ¶19. A ccor di ngl y, thi s C ourt af f i rm s the “J udgm ent of D i s m i s s al ” of the C i r cui t C ourtof W ayne Cou nty. Thi s Courtf i nd s tha tW i e de mann ’ s v i ol a t i on o f M i s s i s s i pp i Rul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 46 and M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 11, i n a tt empt i ng t o f i l e the D ece m ber5, 2005, compl ai ntw i thoutbei ng admi tt ed pr o hac vi ce , may m er i tdi s ci pl i ne by the M issi ssipp i an d /or L o u isi an a S tat e B ar. M issi ssipp i R u le of A p p ell ate P ro ce d u re 4 6 ( b ) ( 1 1 ) ( i i i ) p r o v i d e s , “ [ v ] i o l a t i o n o f th i s ru l e i s d e e me d t o b e th e u n l a wf u l p r a c t i c e o f

l a w. T h e M iss iss ip p i B a r, orit s d e sig n a ted rep re se n tativ e s, sh a ll h a v e the rig h t t o tak e a p p ro p ria te act i on t o enf

or ce the pr ovi s i ons of

thi s rul e underthe pr ovi s i ons of M i s s . Code A nn. § 73- 51- 1 (198 9). ” M i ss. R
. A pp . P
. 46 (b) (11)( i i i ). M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of C i vil P rocedu re 11(b) s t at es, in p a rt, th a t “[f]o r w ilfu l vio latio n o f th is ru le a n atto rn e y m a y b e su b jec te d to a p p ro p ria te di s ci pl i nary act i on. ” M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 11( b). F i nall y, i n D inet , this C o u rt fo u n d th a t a L oui s i ana a tt orney w ho f ai l ed t o be admi tt ed pr o hac vi ce in M iss iss ip p i: vi ol at ed R ul e 5. 5( a) [ of

t he L oui s i ana R ul es of Pr of es s i onal C onduct ] w hen he e n g a g e d in th e u n a u th o riz e d p ra c tice o f l a w in th is S tate . W e re m a n d th is iss u e to th e trial c o u rt w ith in stru c tio n s to n o tify th e L o u isia n a S tate B a r o f th is unauthor i zed a ct i vi ty and fori m pos i t i on of s uch others anct i ons as the tr i al c o u rtd e e ms p r o p e rd u e t o th e v i o l a t i o n s of M i s s . R. Ci v . P
. 1 1 a n d M i s s . R. A pp. P. 46. D inet , 9 4 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 8 5 . T h e re fo re , this C o u rt re m a n d s th is c a se to th e c irc u it c o u rt w ith i ns truct i ons t o not i f

y the Loui s i ana St at e B arof thi s unauthor i zed a ct i vi ty and f ori m pos i t i on

### 12

of s uch others anct i ons as the t ri al cour tdeems pr operdue t o the vi ol at i ons of M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 11 and M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 46. ¶20. AF F I RM ED AND RE M ANDE D. S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R , P .J ., C A R L S O N , D I C K I N S O N A N D L A M A R , J J ., C O N C U R . D I A Z , P .J ., C O N C U R S I N P A R T . E A S L E Y A N D G R A V E S , J J ., CONCUR I N RE S UL T ONL Y.