I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - CA- 0 0 9 2 5 - S CT DI AN A K I NSE Y , ONB E HA L F OF T HE W RONGFUL DEATH BENEFICI ARI ESOF TED W ATK I NS, DECEAS

ED
v. PANGBORN COR POR ATI ON; ASHGRO VE CE M EN T COM P AN Y; P RE CI S ION P AC KA GI NG, I NC. ; CLARK S

AND COM

PANY, I NC. ; CLE

M CO INDUS T R IE S CO R P O R A TI ON; HANS O N AG GR EG

ATES, I NC . ; HU M BLE SAN

D & GR AVEL, I NC. ; PARM

ELEE I ND USTRI

ES, I NC. ; S OUTHERN SI LICA O F LO UI

SI AN A, I N C. ; M I NE SAFETY APPLI ANCES COM

PANY (

MSA) ; EM

PI RE ABRAS I VE EQUI

PM ENT CORP ORATI

ON; PEA RL S A N D S , I N C .; P E A R L S P E C I A L T Y S A N D S , I N C .; SPECI ALTY SAN

D C OM PAN Y; BO B SCH

M I DT, I NC . ; S CHM

I DT M AN UF AC T UR I

NG, I NC . ; L ONE S TAR I

NDU S TRI ES , I NC. ; AND AM

ERICAN OP T ICA L CORP ORAT

ION D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 17/ 2010 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. ROGER T
. CLARK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HARRI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : J OHN T I M OT HY GI VE NS TI M OTH Y W
. PORTER P AT RI CK C. M AL OUF ROBER T AL LE N SMI TH, J R.In the e v en t th at K inse y d id n o t surv ive W atkin s, the “ L ast W il l and T estam e n t” 1 sp e c if ied tha t all pro p erty w o u ld be “w il l[ ed ] , give [n] , de v ise[ d ] an d be q u ea th[ed ] ” to W atki ns ’ s f

ouradul tchi l dr en. 

### 2 ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEES : J ENN I FER J ON ES S KI PP ER F R E D K R U T Z , III EDW I N S. GAU LT , J R. M A T T H E W R O B E R T D O WD CHARLE S R. W I LBANKS , J R. K A T H A R IN E M C K E E S U R K IN RONALD G. P ERE S I CH W
. M AR K E DW AR DS RA ND I PERES I CH M UELLER GEORGE M ARTI N ST REE T, J R. W
. W RI GHT HI LL , J R. J EFF REY PI ERCE FULTZ HAL LORI NG ROA CH, J R. KI M BE RL Y P AI GE M ANGUM DA VI D A
. BA RFI ELD W AL T E R T
. J OHNS ON J OS E P H GE OR GE BA L ADI R O B E R T B
. IR E L A N D , III W ADE G. M ANOR J AM ES S COTT ROGERS C L Y D E L A V E L N IC H O L S , III NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 11/ 03/ 2011 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 W A L L E R , C . J. , R A N D O L P H A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T h e “ L a st W ill a n d T e sta m e n t” o f T e d W a tk in s, d a ted D e c e m b e r 6 , 2 0 0 0 , n a m e d h is
e x -s te p d a u g h te r, D ia n a K in s e y , to s e rv e a s th e e x e c u tr ix o f h is e s ta te a n d “ w ill[e d ], d e v is[e d ],
. . . an d b e q u e a th [ed ] all o f [h is] p ro p e rty ” to h e r. F o llo w in g W a tk in s’s d e a th in 1 J ul y 2003, K i ns ey w as f or m al l y appoi nt ed exe cutr i x of W atki ns ’ s es t at e i n O ct ober2003.

### 3

In M a y 2 0 0 4 , W a tk in s’s e sta te w a s c lo se d a n d K in se y w a s d isc h a rg e d a s e x e c u trix . In A p ril 2007, K i ns ey f

i l ed a w r ongf

ul
- death act i on agai ns tvar i ous s i l i ca- r el at ed ent i t i es i n the C i r cui tC our tof H arr i s on C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , F i r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ct( “ci r cui tcourt ”)
. U pon th e d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n s, th e c irc u it co u rt ru led th a t th is a c tio n w a s b a rre d b y a p p lica b le sta tu tes o f lim itatio n s o r, alte rn a tiv e ly , tha t K in se y lac k e d sta n d in g to file th e w ro n g fu l-d e a th act i on. T he ci r cui tcourtdi s m i s s ed al l def endant s w i th pr ej udi ce. FACTS ¶2. O n O ct ober 4, 2002, W atki ns w as di agnos ed w i th s i l i cos i s . O n D ece m ber 26, 2002,
a mass - t or t , per s onal
- i nj ury s ui tagai nstv ari ous s i l i ca- r el at ed ent i t i es , s tyl ed R udol ph S p e n c e r, e t a l. v. P u lm o sa n S a fe ty E q u ip m e n t, et a l. , w as f i l ed i n the C i r cui tC our tof H um phr eys Count y, M i s s i s s i ppi
. T he pl ai nt i f f s i n thats ui ta s s ert ed cl ai m s of negl i gence , gr os s negl i gence , s tr i ctpr oduct s l i abi l i ty, brea ch of w arr ant i es , and cons pi r acy a gai ns tthe de f e nd a nt s ; a l l e ge d “ s i l i c a - r e l a t e d i nj ur i e s [ ; ] ” a nd s ou gh tr e c ov e ry f or“ pa s t , p r es ent , and f utur e l os s es , notonl y actual , economi c l os s es s uch as l os tw ages and/ orw age- earni ng capa ci ty and expe ns es of m edi cal car e, butal s o com pens at ory l os s es , such a s l os s of heal th, phys i cal pa i n, e m ot i onal ups et , ment al a ngui s h, di s f i gur ement , di s abi l i ty, a nd l os s of enj oym entof

l i f e . . . . ” A m ong the tw enty- f i ve l i s t ed pl ai nt i f

f s w as “Ted W alki n s [s ic ], .
. . a n a d u lt r e s id e n t c itiz e n o f M is s is s ip p i.” (E m p h a s is a d d e d .)T he “Cer t i f i cat e of D eath” l i s t ed W atki ns ’ s caus e of death as r es pi r at ory f

ai l ur e, 2
“ [d ]ue to o r a s a c o n se q u e n c e o f” sm a ll ce ll ca rc in o m a o f th e lu n g s w h ich m e tas tas ize d in to the br ai n and l i ver , i t s el f “[ d] ue t o oras a cons equenc e of ” ci gar ett e s m oki ng. 

### A subs eque ntly-f

il ed “ Sil ic a MDL Plaintif

f’ s Sworn Fa ct

Shee t”li st ed Te d Watkins 3 

### a s a p l a i nti f f in the Spencer

ca se , and thesi gnat

urese ction provide d that Watkins wa s deceased . An swers an d A mend ed Answ ers filedin th e present case by sev eral defen dants provi ded that

“de fe ndant

adm it s that

[Watkins] was at

one tim e a

plaintif f”in Spencer . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 91- 7- 237 ( R ev. 2004) ( “[ w ] hen ei therof the part i es t o any 4 per s onal act i on s hal l di e bef or e f i nal j udgm ent , the exe cut ororadmini strat or of s uch dece as ed party m ay pr os ecut e ordef end suc h act i on, and t he courtshal l re nderj udgm entf or o r ag ains t th e e x ec u tor o r ad m inistrator.”). 

### 4 ¶3. W atki ns di ed on Jul y 28, 2003. O n O ct ober29, 2003, an “A m ended Com pl ai nt ” w as 2 f i l ed i n Spenceri n w hi ch “Ted W alki n s [ s i c] , . . . an adul tr es i dentof M i s s i s s i ppi ” r emai ned among the li st ed pl ai nt i f f s . ( E m phas i s added. ) N o s ugges t i on of death w as m ade and no 3
w ro n g fu l- d e a th c la im s w e re a s s e rt e d . T h e re a ft e r, Spencerw as r emoved t o the U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt fo r th e S o u th e rn D istric t o f T e x a s, C o rp u s C h risti D iv isio n , a s ili c a m u lti
d istri ct l it igation co u rt(“fed era l cou rt ”). ¶4
. O n O ctob er 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 , the C h an ce ry C o u rt o f F o rrest C o u n ty, M issi ssipp i ( “c h an ce ry
co u rt ”), en tered an “O rde r A d m itti n g W il l t o P rob a te a n d for Issu an ce o f L ett ers T es t ament ary. ” The O r derappoi nt ed K i ns ey as the exe cutr i x of W atki ns ’ s es t at e, pur s uant t o W atki ns ’ s “LastW i l l and T es t ament , ” t o per f or m t he dut i es and obl i gat i ons r equi r ed by th a t p o s itio n . K in s e y , a s th e e x e c u tr ix o f W a tk in s ’s e s ta te , neve rm oved t o be subs t i tut ed as
a r eal party i n i nt er es ti n Spencer
. O n M ay 17, 2 00 4, a “J udgm entA ppr ovi ng Fi r s tand 4 F in a l A c c o u n t, C lo sin gEsta te , D isc h a rg in gE x e c u trix and ForO therR el i ef ” w as ent er ed by th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt. (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) T h e Ju d g m e n t o rd e re d th a t K in se y , as “ th e so le devi s ee a nd l egat ee” of the es t at e, w as “ent i t l ed t o r ece i ve al l pr operty of w hat evernatur e,

### At th e time of W atkin s’s death , he h ad mo re than$3 5,0 00 in cred itor claims. 5 

### 5 w hetherpr es ent l y i n poss es s i on or t o l at eraccrue . . . . ” Thi s i ncl uded “a ny as bes t os - r el at ed
orotherpr ocee ds t o be pai d, curr ent l y ori n the f utur e, t o oron behalf

o f” W at ki ns , w hi ch
w e re to b e “ fr e e o f a n y c la im o f c re d ito rs d u e to s a id p ro c e e d s ’ e x e m p t s ta tu s . . . .” 5 ¶5. Subse quent l y, the f eder al courtent er ed an O r derr emandi ng Spence r to th e C irc u it C our tof H um phr eys C ounty due t o l ack of s ubj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on. O n J anuary 30, 2006, the C i r cui tC our tof

H um phr eys C ounty ent er ed an “A gr eed O r derof D is m is s alW i thout Pr ej udi ce” i n Spencer , w hi ch i ncl ud ed t he f ol l ow i ng def

endant s : C l emco I ndus tr i es C o rp o ra tio n ; C lar k S a n d C o m p a n y , In c .; H a n so n A g g re g a tes , In c .; H u m b le S a n d & G ra v e l, I nc. ; Pangborn Corpor at i on; Parm al ee I ndus tr i es , I nc. ; Pr eci s i on Pac kagi ng, I nc. ; and S o u th e rn S ili c a o f L o u isia n a , In c . (co llec tiv e ly , “F o rm a n P e rry D e fe n d a n ts” ). (E m p h a sis
a dd e d. ) O n Apr i l 27 , 20 06 , the Ci r c ui tCour tof H umphr e ys County e nt e r ed an “A gr eed O r derof D is m is s alW i thoutPr ej udi ce” i n S pen cer as t o al l cl ai m s agai ns t“ea ch and e very”

### This Court has summari ze d Sm ith as ho ldin g th at: 6 

### al l c laim s previ ously fil ed en ma ss e for sil ic osi s dam age s that were not fi le d in t he prope r ve nue s hould be se ve re d as mi sj oine d purs uant

to Janss en Pharmaceut

ica v. Armond, 866 So. 2 d 1092 (Mis s. 2004), whic h re quires each claim jo inedin a sin gle law suit to arise from a “d istinct, litig able ev ent.” Sm ith , 926 So. 2d at

845 (c iting Armond, 866 So. 2d at 1099). The Sm ith Court st at ed that such a dis mi ss alwould be“a s t o a m atte r of for m, ” f or purpo ses o f th e sav ingstatute, Mississip pi C od e Sectio n 1 5-1 -69
. Sm ith , 926 So. 2d at 845. Cla rk San d C

o., In c. v. Kelly , 60 So. 3d 149, 153 ( Mis s. 2011) ( em phas is adde d). Sec ti on 15 -1-6 9 “allo ws a p lain tiff who se claim is d ismissed fo r a ‘matter of fo rm’ on e year to refile h is or h er claim in an appropri at e ve nue of his or he r c hoic e. ” Id
. at 153 n.3 (c iting Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1- 69 (Re v. 2003) ) ( em phas is adde d). T h e d efe n d an ts i n clud ed the F o rm an P erry D efe n d an ts, am o n g w h o m this C o u rt 7 i ncl udes A s h G r ove C ementC om pany ( “A s h G r ove”)
. W hi l e A s h G r ove w as nota l i s t ed def endanti n Spencer , K i ns ey’ s C om pl ai ntl i s t ed A s h G r ove as “d/b/ a Pr eci s i on Packagi ng, In c ., ” w h o is a F o rm a n P e rry D e fe n d a n t. T he otherde f

endant s i ncl uded Lone St arI ndus tr i es , I nc. ; Speci al ty Sand C om pany; A m erican O p ti ca l C o rpo rati o n ; E m p ir e A b rasive E q u ipm en t C o rpo rati o n (“E m p ir e A b ra siv e ” ); M in e S a fe ty A p p lian c e s C o m p a n y (“M S A ” ); P e a rl S a n d s, In c .; P e a rl S p e c ialty Sands , I nc. ; Sch m i dt M anuf actur i ng, I nc. ; and B ob Schm i dt , I nc. ( col l ect i vel y, “O ther D efe n d an ts”). 

### No wh ere in K insey ’s Co mplaint didshe alleg e her relatio nsh ip to Watk ins. 8 

### 6 r e mai ni ng def

endant , pur s uantt o Ca n a dia n N a tio n a l v. S m ith , 9 2 6 S o . 2 d 8 3 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ). 6 (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶6. O n A pr i l 27, 2007, K i ns ey f i r s tfi l ed a w r ongf

ul
- death act i on i n the ci r cui tcourt . T he C om pl ai ntw as s tyl ed D iana K inse y, on behal

f of t he W r ongf ul D eat h B enef i ciar ies of

T ed W at kins, D ece as ed v. P angborn Cor por ation, et

al
. Th e Comp l a i n ta l l e g e d “ CO M ES 7 N O W , [ K i ns e y] , on be ha l f of the w r on gf

ul de a th b e ne f

i c i a r i e s of

Ted W a t ki ns , de cea s ed .

. . . ” T he C om plai nt a l l eged thatthe A pr i l 27, 2006, O r derof the C i r cui tC our tof 8 H um phr eys C ounty w as ent er ed pur s uantt o Sm ith , an d K in se y a rg u e d th a t s he w as ther eby

### The For man Per ry De fe ndant s s ent

a s imil ar le tt er to c ounse l f

or Kinse y. 9 F o llo w in g K in se y ’s f

a ilu re to re sp o n d to th e ir lette r, th e F o rm a n P e rry D e fe n d a n ts 10 fi le d a “ M o tio n to C o m p e l.” 

### 7 gr ant ed “one ( 1) ye ar. . . t o r e- f i l e [ W atki ns ’ s ] caus e of act i on i n a pr opervenue a ccor di ng t o n e w l a w i n M i s s i s s i p p i [ , ] ” a n d “ [ t ] h i s c a s e i s b e i n g f i l e d wi th i n th [ a t ] o n e ( 1 ) y e a rt i me fr a m e . . . .” ¶7
. B etw ee n A u g u st 2 0 0 7 an d N o v e m b er 2 0 0 7 , v ariou s d efe n d an ts fil ed their A n sw ers
a n d D e fe n s e s . T h e s e p le a d in g s c o n te n d e d , in tera lia , that the c lai m s ass erted b y K inse y w ere barr ed by appl i cabl e s t atut es of l i m i t at i ons a nd thatK i ns ey l acke d s t andi ng t o c om m ence a
w r ongf ul
- death act i on. ¶8
. O n D ec em b er 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , the c ir cu itco u rte n tered a n “A g ree d Init ial D isco v ery O rde r”
w hi c h pr ov i de d, i n pe r t i ne ntp a r t , tha tKi ns e y w ou l d ha ve s i xty da ys t o r e s po nd t o the de fen d an ts’ “In it ial M aster S et of Interrogat ori es and R equ est s f or Produ ct i on of D ocu m ents ” (“ M a ste r Se t”). O n D ec em b er 18 , 20 0 7 , th e d efe n d an ts p rop o u n d ed th e M aster S et to K i ns ey, w i th r es pons es due February 18, 2008. A f t err ece i vi ng no r es pons es t o the M as t er Set , def endantM SA s enta l ett ert o couns el f orK i ns ey w hi ch pr ovi ded thatthos e r es pons es
w e re “ e x tre m e ly o v e rd u e ” a n d re q u e ste d th a t K in se y “ re sp o n d to th is d isc o v e ry im m e d iate ly t o a vo i d i nv ol ve mentb y the [ c ] ou r t . ” U po n Ki ns e y’ s f a i l ur e t o r e s po nd t o tha tl e t t e r , M SA 9 f i l ed a “ M ot i on t o C om pel. ” Fol l ow i ng hear i ng, the ci r cui tcourtent er ed an “ O r der 10 C om pel l i ng D i s covery R es pons es . ” K i ns ey’ s s ub s e qu e ntr e s po ns es pert i nent l y r evea l ed that sh e w a s W a tk in s’s ste p -d a u g h ter a n d th a t K in s e y f a iled to list an y w ro n g fu l-d e a th b e n e fi c ia ri e s , in c lu d in g W a tk in s ’s c h ild re n id e n tif ie d in th e “ L a s t W ill a n d T e s ta m e n t.”

### The de fe ndant s als o contend ed that Kins ey l ac ked s tanding “ to bring a wrongf ul 11 

### deathactionfor W atkin s” un der M ississipp i Co de S ection11 -7-1 3 b ecause sh e was on ly h is “e x-s tepdaught er ,”and that since“there wa s no e st at e ope n at thetimeof thecomme nce me nt of this sui t, Kins ey woul d havehad no a uthorit y to bring an ac ti on on behal f of the e st at e of Watkins .” K i ns ey r es ponded thats he had s t andi ng “t o br i ng a s ur vi val act i on and w r ongf ul death sui t ” be c a us e s he w a s a n “ i nt e r e s t e d p a r ty” a s “ a n h e i run de rthe w i l l ” w ho m “t he [ c] hance ry [ c] our tdet erm i ned .
. . t o be the s ol e devi s ee a nd l egat ee” of W atki ns ’ s es t at e. 

### 8 ¶9
. T her eaf

t er , t he For m an Pe rry D e f e nd a nt s a nd M SA f

i l e d s epar at e “M ot i ons f or Sum m ary J udgm ent , ” j oi ned by Em pi re A br as i ve, as s ert i ng thatappl i cabl e s t atut es of l i m i t at i ons barr ed K i ns ey’ s s ui t . A ccor di ng t o the For m an Perry D ef endant s , “[ a] ny
w r ongf ul death cl ai m s w oul d hav e ex pir ed thr ee ye ar s f r om [ J ul y 28, 2003] orJ ul y 28, 2006. ” A s the pr es enta ct i on w as comm ence d on A pr i l 27, 2007, the def endant s cont ended thatK i ns ey had “mi s s ed the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . ” The def

endant s f ur theras s ert ed that“no
s t atut ory ‘t oll i ng’ ” exi s t ed bec aus e of the “A gr eed O r derof

D is m is s alW i thoutPr ej udi ce” i n Spencer
. ( E m phas i s added. ) Fi nal l y, the def endant s mai nt ai ned thatSec t i on 15- 1- 69 ( the “s avi ng s t atut e”) w as i nappl i cabl e “[ b] ecause K i ns ey w as nota party t o” S pen cer a n d th is i s “ a new a ct i on f

ora new caus e by a ne w pl ai nt i f f
. ” I n r es pons e, K i ns ey as s ert ed thather 11
c laim s w e re p ro tec ted u n d e r S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -6 9 o r, alte rn a tiv e ly , tha t th e d e fe n d a n ts’ d e lay in
asse rt ing this affi rm ati v e d efe n se c o n sti tuted a w aive r. ¶ 1 0
. F o llo w in g a h e a rin g , the c ir c u it c o u rt e n te re d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, dis m iss in g a ll defend ants w ith p re

ju d ice . T h e c irc u it c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t “[t]h e re is n o d isp u te th a t th is i s a w r ongf

uldeath act i on .” (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) T h e c ir c u it c o u rtc o n c lu d e d , in tera lia , that the thr ee- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons ba rr ed thi s w r ongf ul
- death a ct i on be caus e i t“ac crued on Jul y 28 , 200 3, ” and S ect i on 15-1-69 w as i nap pli cable s i nce the act i on “i s nota r e- f i l i ng of

### “Onewho brings a cl aim unde r the wrongful -de ath st at uteto rec over

only damages 12 

### under circ ums ta

nce s whi ch, ‘i f de ath had not ensue d, would have e nti tl ed the party inj ure d or d amagedthereb y to mainta inanactionandrecov er damag es in resp ect thereo f,’ is ac tually brin ging a surviva l claim
. . . . ” Caves v. Y arbr ough , 99 1 S o. 2d 14 2, 14 9 (M i ss. 2008) ( quot i ng M i s s . Code A nn. § 11- 7- 13 ( R ev. 2004) ) ( emphasi s a dded)
. “T he survi val act i on pr ovi ded i n the w r ongf ul de ath s t atut e i s an ext ens i on of M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s s ur vi val s t atut e, w hi ch al l ow s per s onal act i ons of a dec edentt o be pur s ued af t erhi s orherdeath. ” Caves , 991 S o . 2 d at 14 9 n . 9 (cit ing M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 1 -7-2 3 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 )). 

### 9 a p rev iou sly a v o ided o r de fea ted m att er . . . , n o r w as it c o m m e n c e d b y the p ri o r plainti ff (W atkin s) or his execu t or fo r t h e s a m e c a u s e .” (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) I S S UE ¶ 1 1
. If the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons w as notw ai ved, and if t he “s avi ng s t atut e” i s i nappl i cabl e, then th e sta tu te- o f-lim itatio n s is su e is c a se -d isp o sitiv e . A s s u c h , this C o u rt a d d re ss e s o n ly
w hetherthis w rongful -death acti on w as barr ed b y the st atute of l i m i t at i on s. A N A L Y S IS ¶1 2
. P reli m inaril y , w e ad d ress the n ature of th is ac ti o n , a w ron g ful-de ath c ase . T h is C o u rt has s t at ed thatM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 7- 13, M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s w r ongf ul
- death s t atut e, “enco m passes a ll

cl ai m s – i ncludi ngs ur vi val c l ai m s w hi ch coul d ha ve been br oughtby the d ec ed en t, [ ] w ron g ful-de ath c lai m s, estate c lai m s, an d othe r cl aim s – resu lt ing fr o m a tort

12
w hi ch pr oxi m at el y caus ed a de ath. ” Caves , 9 9 1 S o . 2 d a t 1 5 0 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See a l so Clark Sa nd , 60 S o. 3d at161 ( ci t i ng Caves , 991 So. 2d at148- 49) ( “[ a] n act i on f orw r ongf

ul death i n c l u d e s th e d e c e d e n t ’s ‘ s u r v i v a l

- t

y p e ’c la i ms , such as cl ai m s f orhi s orherper s onal in ju ry , p ro p e rt y d a m a g e , a n d m e d ic a l a n d fu n e ra l e x p e n s e s , a n d th e w ro n g

fu l-d e a th
c l a i ma n t s ’s o - c a l l e d

‘wr o n g f u l

- d e a th ’c la i ms , s uch as l os s of cons or t i um , s oci ety, and
c o m p a n io n sh ip .”) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ); L ong v. McK inney , 897 So. 2d 160, 169 ( M i s s . 2004)

### 10

( “i n w r ongf

ul death l i t i gat i on, ther e ar e s ever al ki nds of dam ages w hi ch m ay be pur s ued, and th e se d a m a g e s a re n o t d u e to th e sa m e c laim a n ts. F o r in sta n c e , the e sta te is e n tit led to
r ecove rf uner al cost s and f

i nal m edi cal expens es . T he bene f i ci ar i es ar e ent i t l ed t o r ecove r fo r th e ir re sp e c tiv e c laim s o f lo s s o f so c iety a n d c o m p a n io n sh ip . T h e w ro n g fu l d e a th benef i ci ar i es ar e ent i t l ed t o r ecove rthe pr es entnetcas h val ue of the dec edent ’ s cont i nued exis t ence.”)
. Sect i on 11- 7- 13 “r equi r es thatal l s uch cl ai m s be br oughti n o n e su it . . . .” Caves , 9 9 1 S o . 2 d at 14 9 (cit ing M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -7-1 3 (R ev . 20 0 4 )) ( em p h asis ad d ed ). See al s o B urley v. D ouglas , 26 So. 3d 1013, 1019 n. 6 ( M i s s . 2009) ( quot i ng I n re E s tate of England , 846 So. 2d 1060, 1068 ( M i s s . Ct
. A pp. 2003) ) ( “[ w ] hen the s ame w r ongf ul conduct
caus es both per s onal i nj ury and dea th, atthe i ns t antof de ath, the r ecove ry f

orthe per s onal in ju ry is em b ra c e d b y the ‘o n e su it’ fo r w ro n g fu l de a th an d is no t ac tio n a b le b y th e e s tate
u n d e r th e s u rv iv a l sta tu te.” ). A re v iew o f K in se y ’s A p ril 2 0 0 7 C o m p lain t re fle c ts th a t o n ly

“ s u rv iv a l- ty p e ” c la im s a re p re s e n te d
. Clark Sa nd , 60 So. 3d at161 ( ci t i ng Caves , 991 So. 2d at148-49)
. W i th thates t abl i s hed, thi s C our tcons i der s w hetherthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons barr ed K i nsey’s cl ai m s. I. W h ether this acti on w as b arred b y the statute of l i m i tat i on s. ( A) W ai ver ¶ 1 3 . T h e w a iv e r, vel

non , of an af f i rm at i ve defense i s s ubj ectt o an abus e- of
- di s cr et i on
s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . See Jo ne s v. FluorDanie l Ser vs . Cor

p. , 32 S o. 3d 41 7, 42 1 (M i ss. 2 0 1 0 ). ¶14. I n the C om pl ai nt , K i ns ey f ai l ed t o st at e herr el at i ons hi p t o W atki ns , t o r evea l that s he h ad b ee n the e x ec u tr ix o f W atkin s’s estate, or t o n am e W atkin s’s e sta te a s a p lai n ti ff. In

### 11

A n s w e rs a n d D e fe n s e s , th e d e fe n d a n ts ra is e d , in tera lia , the a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se o f th e sta tu te
o f lim itatio n s. F o llo w in g th e “ A g re e d In iti a l D isc o v e ry O rd e r,” K in se y fa iled to re sp o n d to the M ast er Setw hen du e, fai l ed to r espon d t o sub sequen tl et t er r equ est s of the d efendan t s, f ai l ed t o r es pond t o the def endant s ’ “M ot i ons t o C om pel , ” and r es pon ded o nl y af t erthe ci r cui tcourtent er ed an “O r derC om pel l i ng D i s covery R es pons es . ” W i thi n tw o m onths af t er
r ece i ptof

the compel l ed r es pons es , eac h def endantei therf

i l ed orj oi ned i n a mot i on f or
su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. ¶ 1 5
. T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t a “ lo n g d e lay ” is n o t en o u g h , “s tan d in g a lo n e ,” to c o n stitu te
w a iv e r o f a n a ff

ir m a ti v e d e f

e n s e . M S Cr edit Center , I nc. v. Hor ton , 926 So. 2d 167, 180 ( M i s s . 2006) )
. O r di nar i l y, ther e m us tbe “ a s ubs t ant i al and unr eas onabl e del ay i n pur s ui ng the r i ght , c oupl ed w i th a ct i ve part i ci pat i on i n the l i t i gat i on pr oces s , ” bef or e w ai verw i l l be fo u n d
. Id . T h e C o m p lain t w a s in su ffic ien t to d e c ip h e r K in se y ’s s tatu s in re latio n to W a tk in s . T h e o n ly sig n ifica n t d e lay w a s c a u se d b y K in se y fa ili n g to p ro v id e tim e ly
r es pons es t o di s covery. W hen K i ns ey f i nal l y r es ponded, f

ol l ow i ng the ci r cui tcourt ’ s “O r der C om pell i ng D i scovery R espon ses, ” the d efen dan t s pursued thi s af fi rm at i ve d efense f or thw i th. A tthatt i m e, thi s m as s - t or tcas e w as s t i l l i n i t s ear l y st ages . N o tr i al dat e had be en
s etand no w i tnes s es ha d be en depos ed dur i ng the per i od of del ay. U nderthe f

act s pr es ent ed, thi s C our tconcl udes thatthe def endant s di d notw ai ve thei rs t atut e- of
- l i m i t at i ons def

ens e. ( B ) Stat ut e of

l i m i tat i ons and the “s avi ng s tatut e” ¶16. “‘ [ T ] he appl i cat i on of a s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s a ques t i on of l aw , ’ w hi ch w e r evi ew de novo. ” Caves , 991 So. 2d at146 ( quot i ng S a rr is v . Sm ith , 78 2 S o . 2 d 7 2 1 , 72 3 (M i ss. 2 0 0 1 )).

### 12

¶17. T he appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons pr ovi des that “[ a] l l act i ons f or w hi ch no other per i od of l i m i t at i on is pr es cr i bed s hal l be comm ence d w i thi n thr ee ( 3) year s nextaf t erthe
ca u se o f such acti on accrued, and no taft er. ” M i ss. C od e A nn . § 1 5-1-49(1) ( R ev. 20 03 ). B u t in a w ro n g fu l- d e a th s u it, w h e re m u lti p le c laim s m u st b e b ro u g h t in o n e su it ( s ee ¶ 12 supra ) , i f

“death i s notan i m m edi at e r es ul tof the t or t , the l i m i t at i on per i ods f orthe var i ous ki nds of cl ai m s m ay notbegi n t o run atthe s ame t i m e. ” Caves , 991 S o. 2d at15 0. For i ns t ance , W atki ns ’ s “s ur vi val
- type” cl ai m s a ctual l y a ccrued on the dat e of di s covery of

the in ju ry . See L in coln E lec. Co. v. McL em ore , 54 So. 3d 833, 836 ( M i s s . 2010) ( quot i ng A n g le
v. Koppe rs, I

nc. , 42 So. 3d 1, 5 ( M i s s . 2010) ) ( “the pl ai n l anguage of Sect i on 15- 1- 49
s u p p o rt s a n in te rp re ta tio n ‘t h a t th e c a u s e o f a c tio n a c c ru e d u p o n d is c o v e ry o f t h e in ju ry , not dis covery o

f the inj ury an d it

s cause . ’”) (em p h asis in o ri g inal). ¶1 8. T he “s ur vi val
- t ype” c l ai ms a c c rue d up on W a t ki ns ’ s d i agnos i s w i t h s i l i cos i s on O ct ober4, 2002. A ny “w r ongf ul
- death” cl ai m s acc rued, atthe l at es t , on the dat e of W a tk in s ’s d e a th o n J u ly 2 8 , 2 0 0 3
. See Clark Sa nd , 6 0 S o . 3 d a t 1 6 1 ; Caves , 991 So. 2d at 1 4 8
. Th e r e f

o r e , i n th e a b s e n c e o f

t o l l i n g , th e s t a tu t e o f

l i mi t a t i o n s f

o r“ s u r v i v a l
- ty p e ” c l a i ms
ra n o n O c to b e r 4 , 2 0 0 5 (a n d fo r “ w ro n g fu l- d e a th ” c la im s , o n J u ly 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 ). S pen cer w as f i l ed w i thi n the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons on D ece m ber26, 2002. H ow ever , n o par ty w as
s ubs t i tut ed f

orthe dec eas ed W atki ns . I n Spencer , an “A gr eed O r derof D i s m i s s al W i thout P re ju d ic e ” w a s e n ter e d a s to th e F o rm a n P e rry D e fe n d a n ts o n Ja n u a ry 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , an d a s to “e ac h an d ev ery D efe n d an t” on A p ri l 27 , 2 0 0 6
. (E m p h asis ad d ed
. ) “[T ]he filing o f a compl ai ntdoes nott ol l the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w hen the pl ai nt i f f vol unt ar i l y di s m i s s es the
s ui t . ” McL em ore , 54 So. 3d at839 ( quot i ng K oes tlerv. Mis s . B aptis t

Heal th Sys. , I nc. , 45

### 13

So. 3d 280, 28 3 (M i s s . 2010) )
. B as ed ther eon, w hen S pen cer w as di s m i s s ed w i thout p re ju d ice , “its p e n d e n c y d id n o t se rv e to to ll th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s o n . . . a w ro n g fu l-d e a th act i on f or[ W atki ns ’ s ] death. ” Clark Sa nd , 60 So. 3d at162. A s no w r ongf ul
- death act i on
w a s file d u n til A p ri l 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 , a ll“ su rv iv a l-ty p e ” c laim s, a s a g a in st a lld efe n d an ts, w ere ti m e-b arred , u n less su ch “su rviv al-ty p e” claim s w ere “fo r th e sam e c au se” as W atkin s’s S pen cer c la im
. Id
. ( quot i ng M i s s . Code A nn. § 15- 1- 69 ( R ev. 2003) )
. I f thatw as the ca s e, then the d ism issal of S pen cer “as t o a m at t er of form ” i m pl i cat ed Sect i on 15- 1- 69, the “s avi ng s t atut e. ” See Cla rkSand , 6 0 S o. 3d at162 ( quot i ng M i s s . C ode A nn. § 15- 1- 69 (R ev . 2 0 0 3 )). S ec ti o n 1 5 -1-6 9 p rov ides a li v ing p lai n ti ff, “o r ‘his ex ec u tor o r ad m inistrator’ in the ev e n t of

h is d e a th , o n e y e a r to re file h is c laim a s a ‘n e w a c tio n fo r th e sa m e c a u se ’ in an appr opr i at e venue . ” Clark Sa nd , 6 0 S o . 3 d a t 16 2 (q u o ti n g M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1-6 9 ). ¶19. I n Clark Sa nd , this C o u rt h e ld th a t: [K e lley ] w a s n o t su b stitu ted a s th e p a rty p lain tiff in [th e d e c e d e n t’s m a ss -to rt, per s onal
- i nj ury] cl ai m [ f i l ed i n f ederal court ] af

t er[ the dec edent ] di ed but b e fo re [th e fe d e ra l s u it] w a s d is m is s e d
. This act i on m us tbe a new and i nde pe nde nt wro ng f ul

- de ath a c t i on , br ou gh tby Kel l e y wi tho ut

the s av i ng sta tu te a n d

se p a ra te a n d

d istin c t fro m [the d e c e d e n t’s] p e rs o n a l-in ju ry c la im in [fe d e ra l co u rt]
.

. . . K el l ey fi l ed this sui tfarm ore than three years af t er [ the d ecede nt’ s] diagnosi s, s o the “s ur vi val
- type” c l ai m s i ncl uded i n K el l ey’ s act i on ar e t i m e- barr ed. Clark Sa nd , 60 So. 3d at1 62 ( emphasi s added)
. W hen the pr es entact i on w as f i l ed, W atki ns ’ s es t at e had be en cl os ed, and K i ns ey had be en di s char ged as exec utr i x ther eof , f or nearl y thr ee yea rs . K i nsey’s C om plai nt w as n o t f i l ed by K i ns ey as the exe cutr i x of W a tk in s ’s e s ta te . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 15- 1- 69 ( act i on underthe “s avi ng s t atut e” i s t o be

### 14

f i l ed by the dec edent ’ s “exe cut ororadmi ni s tr at or. . . . ”)
. T he C om pl ai ntw as s tyl ed D iana K inse y, on beha l

f of t he W r ongf ul D eat h B enef i ciar ies of

T ed W at kins, D ece as ed . It i s undi s put ed thatK i ns ey w as never“s ubs t i tut ed as the party pl ai nt i f f ” i n Spenceraf

t er W atki ns di ed, butbef

or e S pen cer w a s d is m is s e d
. Clark Sa nd , 60 So. 3d at162. U nders uch ci r cumst ances, thi s C our tconcl udes thatthe pr es ents ui tw as a “ne w and i ndepende nt
w ro n g fu l- d e a th a c tio n ” to w h ic h S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -6 9 d o e s n o t a p p ly
. Id . T h e re fo re , this
w rongful -death suiti s barr ed b y the st atute- of- l i m i t at i on s. CO NC L US I ON ¶20. A s K i nsey’s cl ai m s w er e barr ed by the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , thi s C our t af f i r m s the “O r der s G rant i ng Sum m ary J udgm ent ” ent er ed by the C i r cui tC our tof H arr i s on C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ct , di s m i s s i ng al l def endant s w i th pr ej udi ce. ¶21. AF F I RM ED . W A LL ER , C . J. , C A R LSO N A N D D I C K I N SO N , P. JJ . , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE AND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR.