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 3 - I A- 0 0 6 6 6 - S CT T HE F OR M

ER BO AR D OF

T RU S T EESAN D M EM BERSOF M

I S S I S S I PP I COM P CHOICE S EL F- I NS UR ER SFU

ND
v. M I S S I S S I P P I WOR KERS ’COM

P EN S AT ION GR OU P SELF-I

NSU RER GU ARA NTY AS S OC I AT ION
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 02/ 2013 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. J OH N H UEY EM FI NG ER TRI AL C OU RT A TTOR NEY S: KA THR YN L. W HI TE J ACK D. P RI CE J ENN I FER H. SCOTT ANDR E W D. S W E AT CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N TS: M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT KA THR YN LI ND SEY W HI TE J AM E S D. S HANNO N ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: J ENN I FER HU GH ES S CO TT AN DR EW D. SW EAT J OH N D AV I D PRI CE NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 11/ 20/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he M adi s on C ount y C i r cui t C our t hel d that onl y t he M i ssi ss i ppi T or t C l ai m s A ct (“M T C A ”) a p p li es to su it s ag ains t th e M issi ssipp i W o rke rs’ C o m p en sati o n G rou p S elf-

### The Mi ss is sippi Le gis lature cr eate d theMis si ss ippiWorke rs ’ Com pens ation Group 1 

### Sel f- ins ure r Guaranty As soc iati on by provi ding that “ . . . al l group se lf -insurer s s hal l beand re main m em

ber s of thegroup a ss oci ation as a c ondition of their a

uthorit y under Sec ti on 71- 3-75[ .] ” Se ction 71- 3-159 furthe r st at es “
. . . any individua l or group s el f- ins ure r c ompos ed of the s tate , or any age ncy ther eof , or county or munic ipa l gove rnm ent s s hal l not be r equire d to b e members o f the in div idu al associatio n o r the g roup asso ciation .” M is s. Co de Ann . § 71-3- 159 (Re v. 2011)
. Under thi s subse ction, upon theComm is si on’s approval , two o r mo re e mpl oyer s 2 

### “eng agedin a co mmontyp e of b usin ess act iv ity o r pursuit, o r hav ing oth er reason s to associate,” may agree to po ol their liabilities. A self-insured gro up , as is p resent inthe case sub judic e , s hal l c onsi st

of “ em ploye r m em

ber s of thesamebona f

idetradeassoci ation or trade g roup.” M iss. Co de Ann . § 7 1-3 -75 (3) (R ev. 2 01 1). 2 In su re r G u a ra n ty A ss o c iatio n . T h e trial c o u rt d ism iss e d a ll o th e r c laim s, g ra n tin g lea v e to 1 amend t he compl ai ntf

oran M T C A act i on onl y. W e r ever s e.

FA C TS ¶ 2
. An a c t i o n wa s i n i t i a t e d b y c e r t a i n f o r me rme mb e r s a n d th e b o a r d o f M i s s i s s i p p i Co mp C hoi ce Sel f

- I ns ur er s Fund ( “C om p C hoi ce” )
. C om p C hoi ce w as a w or ker s ’ compensa t i on gr oup s el f

- i nsureroper at i ng undera ce r t i f i cat e of author i ty gr ant ed by the M i s s i s s i ppi W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on C om m i s s i on ( “C om m i s s i on”)
. T he C om m i s s i on i s s ues cert i f i cat es
o f au tho ri ty to s e lf- insu rer g rou p s p u rsua n t t o M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 7 1 -3-7 5 (3). 2 D e fe n d a n t is th e M iss iss ip p i W o rk e rs’ C o m p e n sa tio n G ro u p S e lf-In su re r G u a ra n ty A s s o c ia tio n (“ G G A ” ). ¶3. I n 2008, the C om m i s s i on or der ed a r evi ew of C om p C hoi ce. B as ed on i nf or m at i on
r evea l ed i n t he r evi ew , t he C om m i s s i on r equi r ed C om p C hoi ce t o exec ut e a M emora ndum of U nder s t andi ng out l i ni ng a pl an t o “s tr engthen t he f i nanci al and oper at i onal aspe ct s of t heG u ara n ty as so ciation s’ raison d ’être i s t o assum e i nsurer s’ , no tthe g ov ernm ent’ s, 3 d u ties a n d o b lig a tio n s, in th e e v e n t o f in so lv e n c y o f a m e m b e r o f th e a ss o c iatio n . “[T ]he so le purpos e of

the I ns ur ance G uar anty A cti s t o pr ot ectthe i ns ur ed f r om i ns ol ventcompani es and t o r equi r e the f

i nanci al l y heal thy i ns ur ance compani es t o i nvol unt ar i l y contr i but e t o pr ot ect the publ i c. ” O w en s Co rn ing v. Miss. In s. G u a r. A ss’n , 947 So. 2d 944, 946 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng B o b b

y K itch en s, In c. v. Miss. In s. G u a r. A ss’n , 5 6 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 , 1 3 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 )). G G A shares a com m on pu rpose, i
. e. , t o p rot ectw orkers fr om i nsolventi nsurer s. T h e la n g u a g e o f t h e im m u n ity g ra n te d b y M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 7 1 -3 -1 5 1 , et s eq. , 4 i s d i f f e r e n ta n d s i g n i f

i c a n t l y mo r e r e s tr i c t i v e th a n th e i mm u n i t i e s g r a n t e d b y th e M T CA
. S pecif i cal l y, S ect i on 71 -3- 17 9 p ert i nen t l y p rovi des, “ .
. . no cause o f act i on . . . s hall ari se a g a in s t . . . [th e ] a s s o c ia tio n . . . fo r a n y g o o d f a ith , a ff ir m a tiv e a c tio n ta k e n b y a n y o f t h e m [.] S u c h i m m u n ity s h a ll n o t e x te n d to a n y a c ts o f g ro s s n e g lig e n c e b y [th e ] a s s o c ia tio n . . . comm i t t ed i n the per f

or m ance of

t hei rdut i es her eunder
. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 179 ( R ev. 2 0 1 1 ). 

### 3 [C o m p C h o ice] F u n d u n d er the co n tr o l and g u idan ce o f th e C o m m issi o n . ” S ix m o n ths later, t he C omm i s s i on de c i de d n ott o a pp r ov e Com p Choi c e f orf utur e op e r a t i on . Com p Choi ce
v o lu n tar ily su rre n d e re d its c e rtifica te o f a u th o rity to o p e ra te a s a g ro u p se lf-in su re r in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 9 . G G A s te p p e d in to th e s h o e s o f C o m p C h o ic e to p ro te c t c la im a n ts , in tera lia
. See M iss. C o d e A n n . 7 1 -3-1 5 3 (R ev . 2 0 1 1 ). 3 ¶4. C om p C ho i ce fi l ed it s com plai nt agai nstG G A , all eg ing c lai m s so u nd i ng i n gross negl i gence , br eac h of

fi duci ary dut y, bad fa i th, conver s i on, and a de m and f oran ac count i ng, inter a lia
. G G A f

i l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s and cl ai m ed i m m uni ty underthe M T C A and the M is s is s ip p i W o rk e rs ’ C o m p e n s a tio n S e lf -I n s u re r G u a ra n ty A s s o c ia tio n L a w . ¶ 5 . T h e tr i a l c o u r tg r a n t e d th e mo t i o n , f i n d i n g t h a tGGA wa s “ c o v e r e d ” b y t h e M T CA , su b sile n tio ru lin g th a t P lain tiffs c o u ld n o t p u rsu e a “ c a u se o f a c tio n ” a s re fe re n c e d in M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 7 1 -3 -1 7 9
. T h e tr ia l c o u rt h e ld th a t C o m p C h o ice h a d fa iled to 4

### GGA st at ed the i ss ue a s f oll ows: “Di d thetria l c ourt cor rectly det er

mine that the 5 

### Mi s s i s s ipp iW or

ke r s ’ C om

pe ns at i onGr ou

p Se l f
- I ns ure r Guar anty As s oc i at i onwas an ins tr ume nta li ty of

theMis si ss ippiWorke rs ’ Com pens ation Commi ss ion relev ant to t he ac ti on s un derlyingPl ainti f f s ’ c l aim s; that t

he Guaranty As soc iati on was , ther ef ore , a cove re d entit y under theMTCA re lative t o thos e a ctions ; and that theMTCA provi ded the e xclusi ve means fo r Plaintiffs to b ring their claims again st the Guaranty Asso ciationbased up ontho se ac ti ons? ” 4 s t at e a c l ai m underthe M T C A
. T he tr i al courtgave Com p C hoi ce tw enty days t o f i l e an amended compl ai nt . C om p C hoi ce f i l ed a mot i on t o s t ay the pr ocee di ngs and pet i t i oned the C ou rtfori nter l ocu t ory app eal , w hich w e g rant ed. C om p C ho i ce rai ses the fol l ow i ng i ssues: I. D i d the t ri al co u rterr in g ran ti n g D efe n d an t’ s M o ti o n to D is m i ss Pl ai nt i f f’ s A m ended Com pl ai ntf ounded upon t he det erm i nat i on thatthe A ppel l ee, an uni ncorpor at ed l egal ent i ty, w as cover ed by the M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ct , and t her ef or e, ent i t l ed t o i t s var i ous p ro te c tio n s , im m u n itie s a n d e x c e p tio n s p u rs u a n t to M is s . C o d e A n n . § 11- 46- 7? II . D i d the t ri al cou rterr in g ran ti n g D efe n d an t’ s M o ti o n to D ism i ss Pl ai nt i f f’ s A m ended Com pl ai ntbas ed upon the det erm i nat i on thatthe A ppel l ee, an uni ncorpor at ed l egal ent i ty, w as cover ed by the M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ct , even w her e the i m m un i t y cr eat ed i n the M i s s i s s i ppi W orker s ’ C om pens at i on Sel f
- I ns ur erG uar anty A s s oci at i on i n M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 179 abr ogat ed the i m m uni ty af f or ded under the M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A cti n M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 7? 5

S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W ¶6. T he grant o f a mot i on t o di s m i s s r ai s es a ques t i on of l aw thati s r evi ew ed de nov o . L ittle v. Mis s . D ep’t

of T r ansp. , 1 2 9 S o . 3 d 1 3 2 , 1 3 5 (¶ 5 ) (M iss. 2 0 1 3 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). A m ot i on t o di s m i s s underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 12(b) (6) s houl d notbe gr ant ed unl es s the courti s c ert ai n thatthe pl ai nt i f f i s note nt i t l ed t o r el i ef

unde ra ny s etof fact s. I d.

### If a co urt con siders anythin g outside the comp laint, an ord er o f d ismissal o n a Rule 6 

### 12 (b)(6 ) motio n w ill no t lie. A trial co urt “ sh a ll o n ly c o n sid e r th e a lleg a tio n s c o n ta in e d in the pl eadi ng as s ert i ng the cl ai m . ” See M i s s . R . C i v. P. 56, not e. 

### 5 A N A LY SI S I. D i d the tri al court err i n gra n ti n g D efend an t’ s M oti on to D i sm i ss P l ai nt i f f’ s A m ended C om pl ai nt base d up on t he det erm i nat i on t hat G G A w a s co v er ed b y th e M issi ssipp i T o rt C laim s A ct? ¶ 7 . C o m p C h o ic e file d a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t, s ta tin g , in tera lia , that G G A s houl d not b e su b ject t o the im m u n ity p ro v ide d in M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 7 1 -3-1 7 9 (R ev . 2 0 1 1 ),
a s s e r t i n g th a tGGA’ s a c t i o n s we r e o u t s i d e t h e i mm u n i ty g r a n t e d b y th e s t a tu t e . GGA resp o n d ed b y fi li n g a n ine-p ag e M o ti o n to D ism iss th e P lai n ti ff’ s A m en d ed C o m p lain t, “pu rs uan tt o M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of C i vil P rocedu re 12(b)( 6), ” w i th si xteen at t ached exh i bit s,
ar gui ng thati tw as cover ed by the i m m uni ty gr ant ed underSect i on 71- 3- 179 and underthe M T C A p u rs u a n t to M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 , et s eq , cl ai m i ng t o be an in stru m e n tality o f th e C o m m iss io n . T h e re a fte r, th e trial c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t G G A “ . . . is
a n e nt i ty c ov e r e d b y the M TC A
. ” W he the rG G A i s a n i ns trumen t a l i ty o f the Com mi s s i on
c a n n o t b e d e ter m in e d b y a n e x a m in a tio n o f th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t b e fo re th is C o u rt. 6 ¶8. W hetherG G A i s an i ns trum ent al i ty of the C om m i s s i on i s a f

act - dr i ven det erm i nat i on, Itca n n o t be m ad e u n ti l al l f ac ts are de v elop ed an d co n side red , as sh o w n b y o u r ca selaw
. In B o li v a rL e

f lo r e Me di c a l

A l lia n c e, L L Pv. Wil

lia ms , thi s Courtpr ovi ded the f i r s tdef i ni t i on of an i ns trum ent al i ty – “s om ethi ng thats erves a s a n i nt erm edi ary ora gentthr ough w hi ch one
orm or e f unct i ons of

a cont r ol l i ng for ce ar e carr i ed out : a par t , or gan, ors ubs i di ary br anch

### 6

es p. of a governi ng body. ” B o li v a rL e f lo r e Me d

. A l lia n c e, L L Pv. Wil

lia ms , 938 So. 2d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 8 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). B oli varoff er ed a compar i s on of

the f acts i n thatcas e t o the fa c ts i n W att s v. Ts ang , a ca s e i n w hi ch thi s C our thel d thatm edi cal pr act i ce gr oup U A S w as an in s tru m e n ta lity o f t h e U n iv e rs ity o f M is s is s ip p i M e d ic a l C e n te r ( “ U M M C ” ). B oli var , 938 So. 2d at1228 ( ci t i ng W att s v. Ts ang , 8 2 8 S o . 2 d 7 8 5 , 7 9 3 -9 4 (M is s . 2 0 0 2 ))
. ¶9
. I n W

a tts , thi s C ou rtcon si dered n um erous fa c ts i n i t s d e t e r mi n a t i o n : ( 1 ) UM M C
c re a ted U A S ; (2 ) U A S w a s “ o v e rse e n ” b y U M M C ; (3 ) U A S su p p lem e n ted in c o m e to U M M C ’ s fa cul ty; (4) t he day- t o- day act i vi t i es w er e over s een by the depa r t m entchai r , w ho

“ se rv e [d ] at th e p lea su re o f th e c h a n c e llo r o f th e m e d ica l sc h o o l;” (5 ) U A S c o n s is te d o n ly
o f “ fu ll-ti m e U M M C fac u lty -p h y sic ian s;” (6 ) th e fa c u lty p h y sic ian s c o u ld p ra c tice o n ly in l ocat i ons appr oved by U M M C ; and (7) “ .
. . m oney [ w as ] di s tr i but ed onl y on a poi nts ys t em bas ed on f

act or s ot herthan mer e pat i ents ervi ce. ” W a tts , 8 2 8 S o . 2 d a t 7 9 0 , 7 9 4
. ¶10. I n B oli var , this C o u rt fo u n d tha t B o liv a r L e flo re M e d ica l A lli a n c e (“B L M A ” ) a n d its
em p loy ee , D r. W arr i ng t on , w ere an i nstrum ental i ty o f G reenw oo d L efl ore H ospit al (“G L H ”),
a comm uni ty hos pi t al , bas ed on fa c ts d e v e lo p e d
. B oli var , 938 So. 2d at1232. W e f ound t he fol l ow i ng fa c ts : ( 1) G L H cr eat ed and ove r s aw B L M A , ( 2) tw o- thi r ds of the Execut i ve C om m i t t ee, w hi ch over s aw a nd c ontr ol l ed the “bus i nes s af f ai r s ” of B L M A , w as appoi nt ed b y G L H , (3 ) G L H re tain e d 9 8 % in ter e st in B L M A ’s “ in c o m e a n d lo ss e s,” (4 ) p u rsu a n t to contr act , W arr i ngt on coul d pr ovi de s ervi ces onl y f orG L H orthe partner s hi p, and ( 5) W arr i ngt on had ent er ed i nt o a cove nantnott o compet e i n the eventthathe l ef tthe p a rt n e rs h ip
. B oli var , 938 So. 2d at1228. S peci f i cal l y, t hi s C our tdet erm i ned thatB L M A w as

### 7

a n i ns trumen t a l i ty of

GL H “ [ s ] i nc e GL H . . . a ‘ c omm un i ty ho s pi t a l ’
. . . mai nt ai ns 98% i nt er es ti n the i ncome and l os s es of B L M A and t w o- thi r ds (2/ 3) contr ol overthe Execut i ve C om m i t t ee mem ber s hi p of B L M A
. ” B oli var , 938 So. 2d at1231. ¶11. I n E s tate of

Fr eder i ck ex r el

. Sykes v. Q u orum Heal th R es ourc es, I

nc. , 45 So. 3d 6 6 7 (M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 9 ), r eve rs ed on othergr ounds by E s tate of Fr eder i ck ex r el

. Sykes
v. Q uorum Heal

th R es ourc es, I

nc. , 45 So. 3d 641 (M i s s . 2010), t he C our tof A ppeal s f

ound thatQ uorum H eal th R es our ces , I nc. , w as an i ns trum ent al i ty of N es hoba C ounty N ur s i ng H o m e (“ N C N H ” ). E s tate of Fr eder i ck , 45 So. 3d at675. T he fa c ts r evea l ed Q uorum and N C N H had enter ed into an agreem ent w hich speci fi cal l y st at ed that“ .
. . Q uo rum [ w as] act i ng sol el y as the age ntof the H os pi t al
. ” Id
. T h e a g r e e me n tf u r th e rs t i p u l a t e d th a tNC NH
w as notr el i nqui s hi ng any o f i ts “ c o n tr o l o r a u th o ri ty ” to Q u o ru m . Id
. a t67 4. I tw as undi s put ed thatQ uorum w as an age ntof N C N H , and ther efor e, i tw as cl earf r om t he agr eementthatQ uorum w as an i ns trum ent al i ty of N C N H . A l l thr ee c as es ar e f act -sp e c ific
a n d a re w h o lly u n re la te d to th e s u c c e s s , vel non , o f a R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) m o tio n . ¶12. I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , fac ts w ere an d are sti ll u n d ev elop ed , p rec lud ing the tr ial co u rt and thi s C our tfr om det erm i ni ng w hetherP l ai nt i f f’ s cl ai m s , as al l eged i n i t s compl ai nt , can be pur s ued onl y underthe M T C A , as or der ed by the tr i al court , and Pl ai nt i f f m ay notpur s ue
a c a u s e o f a c tio n a s c o n te m p la te d b y S e c tio n 7 1 -3 -1 5 1 , et s eq , orotherw i s e. A bs entf actual d e v e l o p me n t , n o c o u r ta tth i s s t a g e o f th e p r o c e e d i n g s c o u l d a c c u r a t e l y d i s c e rn wh e th e rGGA is a n in s tru m e n ta lity o f t h e C o m m is s io n , vel non , a s a r g u e d b y GGA. CONCL US I ON

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 71-3- 159 (Re v. 2011)
. 7 

### Bla ck’s La w D iction ary681 (a br. 9th e d. 2010)
. 8 

### 8 ¶13
. T heref

ore, the judgm ent of

the M adis on C ou nty C i rcui tC ourti s r eversed, and the case i s r emanded t o t he tr i al courtf orf ur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶ 1 4
. REVERSED AND REM AND ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER AND KI NG, J J . , CONCU R. DI CK I NSON, P. J . , DI S S EN TS W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY P I E R C E A N D C O L E M A N , J J .; L A M A R , J ., J O I N S I N P A R T . C O L E M A N , J ., D I S S E N T S W IT H S E P A R A T E W R IT T E N O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y D I C K I N S O N , P .J ., L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , JJ. DI CK I NS ON , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶15. T he M i s s i s s i ppi W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on G r oup Sel f
- I ns ur er G uarant y A s s oci at i on ( the A s s oci at i on ) w as c r eat ed by s t atut e, and, as an i ns trum ent al i ty of the St at e of 7 M i s s i s s i ppi , i tcl ear l y i s c over ed by the M i s s i s s i ppi Tor tCl ai m s A ct“M T C A ”)
. B eca us e that is th e o n ly q u e stio n b e fo re u s, I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶16. M y r eas on f

ornotf ul l y j oi ni ng J us t i ce C ol eman’ s opi ni on i s thatI s ee no ne ed f or any evaluat i o n o f w hetherthe A ssoci at i on i s al so an instrum ental i ty o f the W orkers ’ C o m p en sati o n C o m m issi o n
— alth o u g h I ag ree w ith h im tha t i t i s. B lack ’s L aw D ict ion ary def i nes a n i ns trum ent al i ty a s “ 1. A thi ng us ed t o a chi eve an end orpurpos e. 2. A m eans or ag en cy thro u g h w h ich a fun cti o n o f a n o ther e n ti ty is acc o m p li sh ed , su ch as a b ran ch o f a g o v e rn in g b o d y .” S o th e q u e stio n is w h e th e r th e L e g isla tu re c re a ted th e A ss o c iatio n to 8
a c h i e v e “ a n e n d o rp u rp o s e ” p r o p e r l y wi th i n i t s p u r v i e w.

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 71-3- 153 (Re v. 2011)
. 9 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 71-3- 163(c ) ( Rev. 2011). 10 

### 9 ¶ 1 7 . I ts e e ms o b v i o u s th a te v e r y e n t i ty th e L e g i s l a tu r e s t a tu t o r i l y c r e a t e s i s t o a c h i e v e s o me governm ent al end orpurpos e. W hy w oul d— and perhaps more i m por t ant l y, how coul d— the L egi s l atur e cr eat e an e nt i ty w i th abs ol ut el y no go vernm ent al purpos e? W hen, as her e, t he L e g isla tu re d e leg a tes to a n e n tity e n fo rc e m e n t p o w e rs th a t ex c e e d th o se p o ss e ss e d b y p riv a te ci t i zens , the ent i ty i s a governm ent al i ns trum ent al i ty. ¶1 8. Tha t br i ng s us t o t he s t a tut or i l y cr e a t e d A s s oc i a t i on . A mong i t s s t a tut or y purpos es is to p ro te c t c itiz e n s fr o m fi n a n c ia l lo s s c a u s e d b y “ th e in s o lv e n c y o f a s e lf -i n s u re r . . . .” 9 T he maj or i ty s c of

f s a tthe n ot i on tha tthe Ass oc i a t i on ’ s s t a tut ory pu rpo s e “ t o pr ot e c tt he p u b lic” is a leg iti m a te g o v e rn m e n tal p u rp o se . If p ro tec tin g th e p u b lic is n o t a leg iti m a te governm ent al purpos e, one w onder s w hy the A t t orney G ener al has a C ons um erPr ot ect i on D i vi s i on, and w hy ther e ar e l aw s agai ns tf r aud. ¶1 9
. It c a n n o t se rio u sly b e d o u b ted th a t p ro tec tio n o f th e p u b lic is a leg iti m a te governm ent al purpos e. A nd t o f ur therthatpurpos e, the L egi s l atur e cr eat ed the A s s oci at i on to se rv e a s its in stru m e n tality a n d g ra n ted it en fo rc e m e n t p o w e rs, in c lu d in g th e p o w e r to
as s es s “ea ch i ndi vi dual s el f
- i ns ur e r ” i n the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi
. So, cl ear l y, the A s s oci at i on

10
w a s c re a te d a s a n in stru m e n tality o f th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i to se rv e a leg iti m a te governm ent al purpos e.M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -1(i) 

### (Re v. 2012)
. 11 M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -1(j) 

### (Re v. 2012)
. 12 M i s s . C ode A nn. §11- 46- 11 

### (Re v. 2012)
. 13 

### Mis s. Code Ann. §71-3- 179 (Re v. 2011)
. 14 M i s s . C ode A nn. §11- 46- 9 

### (Re v. 2012)
. 15 

### 10 ¶ 2 0
. T h e M T C A a p p lie s to th e S ta te o f M is s is s ip p i a n d a ll o f i ts “ p o litic a l s u b d iv is io n [s ]” 11 and “i ns trum ent al i t [ i es ]
. ” T her e ar e no exc ept i ons . So cl ear l y i ta ppl i es t o the A s s oci at i on. 12 A nd beca us e the A ctappl i es t o the A s s oci at i on , any l aw s ui t

— i ncl udi ng the one be f or e us t oday— m us tbe f

i l ed, and mustp roceed accor di ng t o the pr ovi s i ons of the M T C A
. A nd

13 beca us e thati s the onl y ques t i on bef or e us , w e s houl d af

f i r m the tr i al j udge. ¶ 2 1
. T h e G u a ra n ty A ss o c iatio n A c t d o e s in c lu d e a p ro v isio n th a t p ro v id e s c e rt a in im m u n ity f r om s ui t s . B utw hetherthe A s s oci at i on i s i m m une underthe G uar anty A s s oci at i on A ctor

14 the M T C A

— orbot h— i s notbef or e us i n t oday’ s c as e. T he tr i al j udge hel d no m or e than 15 thatthe A s s oci at i on i s c over ed by the M T C A , and any s ui tagai ns ti tm us tpr ocee d acc or di ng to th e re q u ire m e n ts o f th a t A c t. T h e trial ju d g e w a s e x a c tly c o rre c t. P I ER CE AN D C OL E M AN , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON
. LA M AR, J . , J OI NS THI S OPI NI ON I N PART. CO L E M AN , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶22. T he purpos e of

an appeal fr om an i nt er l ocut ory orde ri s t o obt ai n appel l at e r es ol ut i on on a ques t i on of

l aw thatm ay: “( 1) [ m ] at er i al l y advanc e the t erm i nat i on of the l i t i gat i on and avoi d exce pt i onal expens e t o the part i es ; or( 2) [ p] r ot ecta part y fr om s ubs t ant i al and

### Wh ile I agree w ith th e analy sis offeredbyP resid ing Justice D ickin sonin h is 16 

### dis se nt, theparti es ra is ed the argum ent s Iaddr es s he re in. 11 i rr epar abl e i nj ury; or( 3) [r ] esol ve an i s s ue of gener al i m por t ance i n the admi ni s tr at i on of ju s ti c e .” M is s . R . A p p . P . 5 (a ). See al s o K il gor e v. B ar nes , 490 So. 2d 895, 896 (M i ss. 1986) ( the C our tgr ant s i nt er l ocut ory appea l s t o “f i nal l y s ett l e the contr ol l i ng pr i nci pl es of la w in th e c a s e ” ). ¶23
. C o m p C h o ice p eti t i on ed the C ou rtfori nter l ocu t ory app eal becau se the tr i al cou rt
re a c h e d a c o n c lu s io n o f law th a t th e M iss iss ip p i T o rt C laim s A c t ap p lied to th e G u a ra n ty A s s oci at i on and thatconcl us i on of l aw contr ol l ed the l i t i gat i on. W e agr eed, st ayed t he l i t i gati on i n the tri al cou rt , and grant ed the i nter l ocu t ory ap peal, p urport edly f or the p urpose
o f re v iew in g the tri a l co u rt’s c o n c lu sio n an d an sw e rin g a q u e stio n o f law im p o rta n t n o t o n ly t o t he gener al admi ni s tr at i on of j us t i ce butt o the part i es i nvol ved i n the i ns t antl i t i gat i on. H ow ever , the maj or i ty now di s pos es of the appea l w i thouta ns w er i ng the ques t i on pr es ent ed
r e g a r d i n g th e c o n tr o l l i n g p r i n c i p l e o f l a w a n d f

a i l s t o a c c o mp l i s h th e p u rp o s e f o rwh i c h we al l ow i nt er l ocut ory appea l s . I n m y opi ni on, the ques t i on can be ans w er ed bas ed on the l aw and r ecor d bef

or e us . I w oul d ans w erthe ques t i on posed by t he part i es , w hi ch w oul d al l ow the part i es and courtbe l ow t o pr ocee d a l ong the corr ectl egal path. T her ef or e, r es pect f

ul l y, 16 I d iss e n t. F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory ¶2 4
. A s ex p lai n ed b y the m ajority , C o m p C h o ice w as a w o rke rs’ co m p en sati o n g rou p selfi nsurerop erat i ng un der a cert i fi cat e o f au tho ri ty g rant ed b y the M i ssi ssi pp i W orkers ’

### 12

C om pens at i on C om m i s s i on ( “C om m i s s i on”)
. A ccor di ng t o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 71- 3- 15 9, al l group sel f- i nsurer s, l i ke C om p C ho i ce, are m em bers of the M i ssi ssi pp i W orkers ’ C o m p en sati o n G rou p S elf-I n su rer G u ara n ty A sso ciati o n (“G u ara n ty A sso ciati o n ”). I n Jan u ary 2 0 0 9 , C o m p C h o ice su rren d ere d it s ce rt if icate of au tho ri ty to o p era te as a g rou p selfi ns ur erf ol l ow i ng a r evi ew by the C om m i s s i on and the C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on nott o appr ove the C om p C hoi ce Fund f orf utur e oper at i on. C om p C hoi ce c l ai m s that , w hen i ts urr ender ed i t s cert i f i cat e of author i ty, the Fund had $2, 770, 000 i n cas h, pl us pri vat e i nves t m ent s , w hi ch shou l d h ave suffi ced to pay the rem ai ning cl ai m s and legal ob l i gati on s. ¶25. I n February 2009, the C om m i s s i on ent er ed an or der gi vi ng the G uar anty A s s oci at i on
r es pons i bi l i ty f

oroper at i ng the C om p C hoi ce Fund. T he G uar anty A ssoci at i on r et ai ned A m F ed t o handl e the pendi ng cl ai m s . C om p C hoi ce obj ect ed t o hi r i ng A m Fed, because A m Fed char ged a hi gherfe e t han t he adm i ni s tr at orC om p C hoi ce ha d been us i ng. I n O ct ober 2009, C om p C hoi ce w as not i f i ed thatcert ai n as s et s of the C om p C hoi ce Fund w er e bei ng li q u idated
. C o m p C h o ice o b jected , say ing that ce rt ain in v estm en ts w ere lon g term i nves t m ent s a nd thatl i qui dat i ng them pr ematur el y w oul d r es ul ti n a l os s . I n A pr i l 2010, t he C om m i s s i on as s es s ed appr oxi m at el y $1, 950, 000 t o be di vided a m ong the C om p C hoi ce
me mb e r s , c l a i mi n g th a ta mo u n twa s n e e d e d t o c l o s e th e o u t s t a n d i n g c l a i ms a g a i n s tth e Co mp C hoi ce Fund. C om p C hoi ce a s s ert s thati tm ade s ever al r eques t s f oran ac count i ng of expens es and payment s , butthe G uara nty A s s oci at i on and A m Fed neverpr ovi ded an
a c c o u n tin g .

### 13

¶26. C om p C hoi ce s ued the G uar anty A s s oci at i on al l egi ng thati thad act ed negl i gent l y and i n bad f ai th i n per f

or m i ng i t s dut i es and i n oper at i ng the C om p C hoi ce Fund. S peci f i cal l y, C omp Choi c e a l l e ge d tha tthe Guar a nty A s s oc i a t i on n e gl i ge nt l y a nd was t e f ul l y s pe ntt he C o m p C h o ice F u n d ’s m o n e y , w h ich in c lu d e d p a y in g A m F e d a n e x o rb itan t fe e ; n e g lig e n tly att empt ed t o s el l the C om p Choi ce Fund’ s as s et s ; negl i gent l y w i thhel d pr emi um depos i t s of
a p p ro x im a tely $ 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 b e lo n g in g to th e m e m b e rs o f th e C o m p C h o ice F u n d ; n e g lig e n tly and i n bad f

ai th conduct ed and pai d f oran unnec es s ary i nves t i gat i on outof the C om p C hoi ce Fund’ s as s et s neede d f

orcl ai m s ; negl i gent l y and i n ba d f ai th e ngaged i n ques t i onabl e hi r i ng p ra cti ce s an d w asti n g asse ts of the C o m p C h o ice F u n d ; and n eg li g en tl y an d in b ad faith pr epar ed pr emi um audi t s w i thoutdet ai l ed underw r i t i ng dat a. T he com pl ai nti ncl uded a d em an d for a n acc o u n ti n g an d clai m s for ne g li g en ce , gro ss ne g li g en ce , brea ch o f fi d u ciary d u ty , b a d fa ith , c o n v e rs io n , a n d in te n tio n a l in fl ic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . ¶27. T he G uar anty A s soci at i on fi l ed a m ot i on t o di s m i s s , cl ai m i ng i tw as exempt f r om l i abi l i ty underthe M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ctand the M i s s i s s i ppi W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on Sel f
- I ns ur erG uar anty A s s oci at i on L aw . T he t r i al cour tgra nt ed t he m ot i on, f i ndi ng thatt he G uar anty A s s oci at i on w as cover ed by the TortC l ai m s A ct . B eca us e the TortC l ai m s A ct pr ovi des the excl us i ve r emedy f orc l ai m s a gai ns tc over ed ent i t i es , and the compl ai ntdi d not
a l l e g e a c a u s e o f

a c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o th e To rtCl a i ms A c t , t h e t r i a l c o u r th e l d th a tCo mp C hoi ce ha d f

ai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m f

orw hi ch r el i ef

coul d be gr ant ed. T he tr i al courtgave C om p C hoi ce tw enty days t o f i l e an amended c om pl ai ntunde rthe TortC l ai m s A ct . I ns t ead, C o m p C h o ice p eti ti o n ed the C o u rtfor interlo c u to ry a p p ea l. W e g ran ted C o m p C h o ice’s

### 14

pet i t i on f

ori nt er l ocut ory appea l t o det erm i ne w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed by di sm i ss i ng C om p C hoi ce’ s com pl ai nton the gr ounds t hatt he G uar anty A s s oci at i on w as cover ed by the T o rt C laim s A c t. D i s cus s i on ¶ 2 8
. T h e o n ly iss u e p ro p e rly b e fo re th e C o u rt is w h e th e r th e G u a ra n ty A ss o c iatio n is
en ti tl ed to p rotec ti o n u n d er th e T o rtC lai m s A ct, b ec au se that is the o n ly issue the tri al co u rt add r e s s e d. “ [ A ] pp l i c a t i on of the M TC A i s a qu e s t i on of a l a w tha ti s r e vi ew ed de novo .” L ittle v. Mis s . D ep’t

of T r ansp. , 1 2 9 S o . 3 d 1 3 2 , 1 3 5 (¶ 5 ) (M iss. 2 0 1 3 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). T he gr antof

a mot i on t o di s m i s s a l s o r ai s es a ques t i on of l aw thati s r evi ew ed de novo
. I d. W het her t he M i s s i s s i ppi W orke rs ’ C om pensat i on G roup Sel f - I nsure r G uarant y A s s oci at i on i s a s t at e agency, pol i t i cal s ubd i vi s i on, or instr u m en tali ty th er eo f co v er ed b y th e M issi ssipp i T o rt C laim s A ct. ¶29
. T he T o rtC lai m s A ct pro v ides the e x clus ive re m ed y for c ivil claim s ag ainst g o v ern m en tal en ti ti es a n d em p loy ee s. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -7 (R ev . 2 0 1 2 ). “G overnm ent al ent i ty” i s def i ned as “the s t at e and pol i t i cal subdi vi s i ons . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 1( g) ( Supp. 2014)
. The Tor tCl ai m s A ctde f i nes “ s t at e” and “pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on” as f oll ow s: ( i ) “Pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on” means any body pol i t i c orbody corpor at e otherthan the s t at e r es pons i bl e f

orgovernm ent al acti vi t i es onl y i n geogr aphi c ar eas s m al l erthan thatof

the s t at e, i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed t o, a ny count y, m u n icip a lity , sc h o o l dis trict, ch a rte r sc h o o l, vo lu n tee r fire d e p a rtm e n t th a t is a cha r t er ed nonp r of

i tc orpo r a t i on pr ov i di ng emer gency s ervi ces undercontr act w i th a county orm uni ci pal i t y, co m m un i ty hos pi t al
. . . , ai rpor tauthor i ty, or o th e r in stru m e n tality o f th e sta te, w h e th e r o r n o t t h e b o d y o r in stru m e n tality has the author i ty t o l evy t axes ort o s ue orbe s ued i n i t s ow n name.

### 15

( j ) “St at e” m eans t he St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi and any of

f i ce, depart m ent , agenc y, di vi s i on, bur eau, comm i s s i on, boa r d, i ns t i tut i on, hos pi t al , c ol l ege, uni ver s i ty, ai rpor tauthor i ty[ , ] or otheri ns trum ent al i ty t her eof , w hetheror notthe body or i n s tru me n t a l i ty h a s th e a u th o r i ty t o l e v y t a x e s o rt o s u e o rb e s u e d i n i t s o wn name. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -1 (i ), ( j) (S u p p . 2 0 1 4 ). ¶3 0. C om p C hoi ce a s s er t s t hat the G uara nt y A s s oci at i on i s a s t atut or i l y cr eat ed uni ncorpor at ed l egal ent i ty, w hi ch i s nota s t at e agenc y orpol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on ent i t l ed t o t he p ro tec tio n s o f th e T o rt C laim s A c t. C o m p C h o ice p o sits th a t, be c a u se th e G u a ra n ty A s s oci at i on w as cr eat ed by s t atut e and notby t he C om m i s s i on, i tdoes notder i ve i t s pow er and author i ty f

r om the C om m i s s i on; thus , i ti s notan age ntori ns trum ent al i t y of t he C om m i s s i on. C om p C hoi ce l i kens the G uar anty A s s oci at i on t o the M i s s i s s i ppi I ns ur ance G u a ra n ty A s s o c ia tio n (“ M IG A ” ), w h ic h th e C o u rt h a s s a id is n o t a s ta te a g e n c y . ¶3 1. T he G uar ant y A s s oci at i on r es ponds t hati tact s as an i ns t rum ent al i t y of t he C om m i s s i on, i n thati tact s pur s uantt o the C om m i s s i on’ s or der s and ca rr i es outf unct i ons of the C o m m issi o n . T h e G u ara n ty A sso ciati o n asse rt s tha t i ts l eg al st atus is no t r elev an t; rathe r, th e C o u rt sh o u ld lo o k a t it s re latio n sh ip w ith th e C o m m iss io n in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r it is an i ns trum ent al i ty of

the s t at e. B oth part i es ci t e ca s es i n w hi ch the C our thas det erm i ned
w h ethe r ce rt ain e n ti ti es a re state ag en cies o r i n stru m e n talit ies o f th e state u n d er the T o rt C l ai m s A ct , butthe ca s es ar e notdi r ect l y on poi nt . A ccor di ngl y, the ca s e s ub j udi ce p re se n ts the C our tw i th an i s s ue of f i r s ti m pr es s i on. A . St at ut ory C reat i on

### 16

¶3 2. T he purpos e of t he M i s s i s s i pp i W orke r s ’ Compe ns at i on L aw and t he cover age
r equi r ementi s t o t i m el y pay di s abi l i ty benef i t s and m edi cal expens es t o w or ker s w ho s uf f er
w or k- r el at ed i nj ur i es and t o encour age them t o r eturn t o w or k. M i s s . Code A nn. § 71- 3- 1( 3) ( Supp. 2014)
. T he C our thas s ai d that“ the purpos e behi nd the W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on L aw i s t o share am on gstw orkers , em ployers , and con sum ers the bu rden of supp ort ing those
w ho se abi l i ty to w ork i s ser i ou sl y d i m i nis hed or el i m i nat ed. ” Me r idian Pr of ’l Bas e ba l l Club
v. Jens en , 828 So. 2d 740, 749 ( ¶ 24) ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. E m pl oyer s w i th at l eas tfi ve empl oyees ar e r equi r ed t o have w or ker s ’ compensa t i on cover age. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 7 1 -3-5 (R ev . 2 0 1 1 ). S m all co m p an ies “e n g ag ed in a c o m m o n typ e o f b u sin ess” are al l ow ed t o come t ogetherand f or m a gr oup t o “pool thei rl i abi l i t i es . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 75( 3) ( R ev. 2011)
. T hos e gr oups ar e ca l l ed “s el f
- i ns ur ed gr oups, ” an d t hey m us tbe
a p p ro v e d b y th e C o m m is s io n . I d. T he W orkers ’ C om pen sat i on L aw provides: P o o li n g o f l iab il it ies: T he comm i s s i on m ay, undersuch rul es and r egul at i ons as i tpr es cr i bes , perm i ttw o ( 2) orm or e em pl oyer s engaged i n a com m on type of bus i nes s act i vi ty orpur s ui t , orhavi ng otherr eas ons t o as s oci at e, t o ent er i nt o agr eement s t o pool thei rl i abi l i t i es underthi s s ect i on f orthe purpos e of q u a lify in g a s g ro u p s e lf-in su re rs, a n d , in c o n ju n c tio n th e re w ith , to e n ter in to agr eement s t o pool any otherl i abi l i t i es t o t hei rem pl oyees , and each e m pl oyer m e m b e r o f s u c h a p p ro v e d g ro u p s h a ll b e c la s s if ie d a s a s e lf

-i n s u re r. . . . M i s s . Code A nn. § 71- 3- 75( 3) ( R ev. 2011)
. C om p Choi ce w as a group sel f
- i ns ur er
com pri sed of l og ging and t i m ber com pan i es. ¶33. I n addi t i on t o the W or ker s ’ C om pen sat i on L aw , sel f- i nsurer s are subje ctt o the M is s is s ip p i W o rk e rs ’ C o m p e n s a tio n S e lf -I n s u re r G u a ra n ty A s s o c ia tio n L a w . See M i ss.

### 17

C o d e A n n . § § 7 1 -3 -1 5 1 -1 8 1 (R e v . 2 0 1 1 ). T h e sta ted p u rp o se o f th e S e lf-In su re r G u a ra n ty A ssoci at i on L aw i s:

. . . t o pr ovi de a m echa ni s m f orthe paymentof

the cove r ed cl ai m s underthe W o rk e rs’ C o m p e n sa tio n L a w , to a v o id e x c e ss iv e d e lay in p a y m e n t an d to a v o id fin a n c ial lo ss to c laim a n ts b e c a u se o f th e ins o lv e n c y o f a se lf-in su re r, to a ss ist in th e d e tec tio n a n d p re v e n tio n o f se lf-in su re r in so lv e n c ies , an d to provide ass ociat i on s t o assess the co stof such p rot ect i on am on g sel f- i nsurer s. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 7 1 -3 -1 5 3 (R e v . 2 0 1 1 ). C o m p C h o ice w a s a m e m b e r o f th e G u a ra n ty A s s o c ia tio n p u rs u a n t to M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 7 1 -3 -1 5 9
. ¶3 4. M ember s of

the Guar a nty A s s oc i a t i on ’ s boar d of di r ect or s ar e s el ect ed by t he “mem bers el f

- i ns ur er s , s ubj ectt o t he appr oval of the [ C ] om m i s s i on. ” M i s s . Code A nn. § 71- 3- 161( 1) ( R ev. 2011)
. T he G uar anty A s s oci at i on i s re qui r ed t o s ubm i ta “pl an of oper at i on” t o the C om m i s s i on forappr oval
. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 165 ( R ev. 2011)
. Sect i on 71- 3- 163 out l i nes the pow er s and dut i es of the G uar anty A s s oci at i on, and i thas i m m uni ty f orgood f ai th act i ons t aken i n the cour s e of carryi ng outi t s s t atut ory dut i es . M i s s . Code A nn. § 71- 3- 1 7 9 (R ev . 2 0 1 1 ). ¶3 5. C om p C hoi ce i s cor r ectt hatt he G ua r a nty Ass oc i a t i on i s s t a tut or i l y c r e at ed and d e riv e s its a u th o rity fro m sta tu tes . H o w e v e r, th e fac t th a t an en tity a c ts p u rsu a n t to sta tu te d o e s n o tp r e c l u d e i tf

r o m b e i n g a n i n s tru me n t a l i ty o f a s t a t e e n t i ty , a s Co mp Ch o i c e s e e ms t o ar gue. I n f

act , the oppos i t e i s true. T he C our thas hel d that“[ g] overnm ent al act i ons under the M T C A ar e t hos e w hi ch ar e per f or m ed pur s uantt o t he actof s t atut e [ s i c] orar e a mat t er of publ i c nece s s i ty. ” Spe nc e rv. G r e e nwood/ Lef lor e Ai r po r t Auth. , 8 3 4 S o . 2 d 7 0 7 , 7 1 1 (¶ 12) ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng T h om as v. H

il bu rn , 654 So. 2d 898, 900 ( M i s s . 1995) )
. T hus , the

### 18

G uar anty A s s oci at i on’ s du t i es and r es pons i bi l i t i es per f or m ed pur s uantt o s t atut e coul d be
c o n sid e re d “ g o v e rn m e n tal a c tiv iti e s.” F u rth e r, b y a n d lar g e , m u c h o f th e G u a ra n ty A s s oci at i on’ s oper at i on i s s ubj ectt o the C om m i s s i on’ s appr oval
. T he G uar anty A s s oci at i on
ma i n t a i n s t h a ti t s l e g a l s t a tu s a s a “ s t a tu t o r i l y c r e a t e d u n i n c o rp o r a t e d l e g a l e n t i ty ” – a s Co mp C h o ice lab e ls it – is n o t re lev a n t. T h e G u a ra n ty A ss o c iatio n a s k s th e C o u rt to lo o k a t it s
r el at i ons hi p w i t h t he C om m i s s i on t o det erm i ne w hetheri ti s an i ns trum ent al i ty of t he C om m i s s i on and, thus , of the s t at e. B . I nst rum ent al i t y of

t he C om m i s s i on ¶ 3 6
. T h e G u a ra n ty A ss o c iatio n a ss e rts th a t it is a n in stru m e n tality o f th e s tate b e c a u se it act s as an i nt erm edi ary oragentof the C om m i s s i on and ca rr i es outs om e of the C om m i s s i on’ s f

unct i ons ati t s di r ect i on. T he TortC l ai m s A ctdoes notdef i ne “i ns trum ent al i ty” underSect i on 1 1-46-1, butthe C our thas hel d thatthe Legi s l atur e us ed

“ ‘in stru m e n tality ’ a s a n in c lu siv e ter m so a s n o t t o li m it th e m e a n s b y w h ich the sta te c o u ld
carry ou ti t s governm ent al f unct i ons . ” Mozin go v. S ch arf , 828 So. 2d 1246, 1255 ( ¶ 26) (M is s . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e C o u rt a ls o h a s a d o p te d th e d ic tio n a ry d e fi n itio n o f “ in s tru m e n ta lity ,”
w r i t i ng thati ti s def

i ned as “s om ethi ng thats erves as an i nt erm edi ary oragentthr ough w hi ch
o n e o r m o re fu n cti o n s o f a c o n tro lli n g forc e a re c arried o u t: a p art, o rga n , o r sub sidiary br anch e s p. of

a gove r ni ng body. ” B o li v a rL e f lo r e Me d . A l lia n c e, L L Pv. Wil

lia ms , 938 So. 2d 1222, 1228 ( ¶ 16) ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng W ebs t er ’s Thi r d N

ew I nt ’ lD i ct i onar

y 1172 ( 3d
e d . 1 9 8 6 ))
.

### 19

¶37
. T h e G uarant y A ssoci at i on ci t es E state o f Fedrick ex rel. S

yk es v. Q u o ru m Hea lth R es . , I nc. , 4 5 S o . 3 d 6 6 7 (M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 9 ), rev ’d , 4 5 S o . 3 d 6 4 1 (M iss . 2 0 1 0 ); B oli var L e f lo r e Me d

. Al lia n c e, L L Pv. Wil

lia ms , 938 So. 2d 1222 ( M i s s . 2006) ; and Moz ingo v. S ch arf , 8 2 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ), in s u p p o rt o f its p o sitio n th a t itis a n in stru m e n tality
o f th e sta te, lik e th e e n tit ies in th e a b o v e -liste d c a se s, w h ich w e re a g e n ts o f c o m m u n ity hos pi t al s . T he TortC l ai m s A ctdef i ni t i on of

pol i t i cal sub divi s i on s peci f i cal l y i ncl udes
c o m m u n ity h o s p ita ls
. See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -1(i) ( S u p p . 2 0 1 4 ). ¶ 3 8
. E s tate of

Fedr i ck w as a C ou rt of A pp eal s case that w as ov erru led o n o ther i ssues. T he ent i ty i n ques t i on, Q uorum , w as the managementcompany f ora nur s i ng hom e, w hi ch
w a s a s u b s id ia ry o f a c o m m u n ity h o s p ita l o w n e d b y th e c o u n ty . E s tate of Fedr i ck , 45 So. 3d at 669 (¶ 3)
. Q uorum had ent er ed a managementagr eementw i th the hos pi t al , w hi ch
s peci f i cal l y pr ovi ded thatQ uorum w as an age ntof the hos pi t al , thatthe hos pi t al di d not
r el egat e any of

i t s author i ty orcontr ol of oper at i ons t o Q uorum , t hatQ uorum w as r equi r ed t o s ubm i ti t s budgetand annua l m anagem entpl an t o the hos pi t al f orappr oval , and that Q u o ru m c o u ld n o t h ir e o r e x e c u te c o n tr a c ts w ith o u t a p p ro v a l. I d. a t675 ( ¶¶ 26- 30)
. B as ed on the s peci f

i c t erm s of

the managementagr eement , the C our tof A ppeal s hel d thatQ uorum
w a s a n in s tru m e n ta lity o f t h e s ta te e n title d to p ro te c tio n u n d e rt h e T o rt C la im s A c t. I d. at 675 ( ¶ 31)
. T he r ecor d i n t he i ns t antcas e does noti ncl ude a si m i l aragr eementbet w een the G u a ra n ty A s s o c ia tio n a n d th e C o m m is s io n . ¶39. B ol i varLef

l or e M edi cal A l l i ance w as a f ami l y m edi cal c l i ni c cr eat ed by agr eement b e tw e e n G re e n w o o d L e fl o re H o s p ita l a n d s e v e ra l p h y s ic ia n s . B olivar L eflore , 938 So. 2d“M edi cal pr act i ce pl ans ar e o rgani zed gr oups of phys i ci ans w i th m edi cal s chool 17 facul ty ap po i ntm en ts w ho , i n ad dit i on t o resear ch an d m edical edu cat i on res po nsi bil i t i es, provi de pat i entcar e s ervi ces t o both i ns ur ed and uni ns ur ed pat i ent s . M os tof the medi cal p ra c tice p lan s u til ize U M M C d e p a rtm e n tal p e rso n n e l w ith in th e ir re sp e c tiv e d e p a rtm e n ts to per f or m w or k on behal f

of the medi cal pr act i ce pl ans . ” Moz ingo , 8 2 8 S o . 2d at 12 5 4 (¶ 2 3 ).



### 20 a t 1 2 2 3 (¶ 2 ). T h e C o u rt h e ld tha t B o liv a r L e flo re M e d ica l A lli a n c e w a s a n in stru m e n tality of G r eenw ood L ef

l or e H os pi t al , a comm uni ty hos pi t al
. T he deci s i on w as bas ed on the f act thatG r eenw ood L ef

l or e had a 98% i nt er es ti n the cl i ni c and maj or i ty contr ol of the exe cut i ve
comm i t t ee f

orB ol i varL ef

l or e, w hi ch exe cut i ve comm i t t ee i n turn had author i ty and contr ol
o v e r i ts b u s in e s s a ff

a ir s . I d. a t1232 ( ¶ 28)
. T he C our tf ound thatB ol i varL ef

l or e w as “an interm ediary or agentthroug h w hich cert ai n funct i on s of [ G reenw oo d L efl ore] are
a c c o m p lish e d ” a n d , the re fo re , itw a s a n “ in stru m e n tality ” o f G re e n w o o d L e flo re e n tit led to th e p ro te c tio n s o f t h e T o rt C la im s A c t. I d. In th e in sta n t ca se , the G u a ra n ty A ss o c iatio n is compri s ed of

a gr oup of

pr i vat e empl oyer s , a nd i ti s notow ned orop erat ed b y t he C om m i s s i on. ¶40. I n Mozin go v. S ch arf , the M o zing o s su e d D r. S c h a rf for m ed ical m alpra cti ce . D r. Schar f w as a phys i ci an and pr of es s orempl oyed by the U ni ver s i ty of M i s s i s s i ppi M edi cal C ent er( U M M C) a nd U ni ve r s i ty Anes the s i a Se r vi c e s ( U A S) , w hi c h was a de pa r t ment al p r a c t i c e p l a n a tUM M C. Moz ingo , 8 2 8 S o . 2 d a t 12 4 9 (¶ 3 ). T h e C o u rta p p li ed a five -pa rt 17 t es t , es t abl i s hed i n Mil

lerv. Meeks , 762 So. 2d 302 ( M i s s . 2000) , f ordet erm i ni ng w hether “a doc t ori s cons i der ed an i ndepende ntcontr act orora s t at e empl oyee f ort he purpos es of

t he M T C A
. ” Moz ingo , 8 28 So
. 2 d a t1 25 0 ( ¶ 8)
. A s a n e mpl oy e e o f UM M C, Dr . Sc ha r f

w as

### 21

“r equi r ed t o part i ci pat e i n hi s depart m ent ’ s pr act i ce p l an, U A S[ , ] ” and he pr ovi ded dual
s e rv ic e s a s a n a n e s th e s io lo g is t a n d a p r o f e s s o r. I d. at1253 ( ¶ 21)
. D r . Schar f w as an
e m p lo y e e o f b o th U M M C a n d U A S , a n d h e re c e iv e d c o m p e n s a tio n fr o m b o th
. I d . T he C our thel d thatD r . Schar f w as a s t at e empl oyee beca us e he w as empl oyed by U M M C , and h e w a s e n title d to im m u n ity u n d e r t h e T o rt C la im s A c t. I d. T he i nst ant c as e does not inv o lve a n y stat e em p loy ee s. T h e G u ara n ty A sso ciati o n ex erc ises i ts p o w er thro u g h a b o ard of di r ect or s , w ho ar e vol unt eer s notempl oyed by the C om m i s s i on. H ow ever , t he C om m i s s i on m us tappr ove the mem ber s of the boar d. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 161( 1) ( R ev. 2 0 1 1 ). ¶41. T he ent i t i es i n the ca s es ci t ed by t he G uar anty A s s oci at i on ar e notcompar abl e. T he C our thas es t abl i s hed a s epar at e t es tf ordet erm i ni ng w hetherdoct or s are s t at e empl oyees
u n d e r t h e T o rt C la im s A c t, a n d it la c k s a p p lic a b ility h e re . Moz ingo , 8 2 8 S o . 2 d at 12 5 0 (¶ 8 ); Mil ler , 762 So. 2d 310 ( ¶ 20)
. I n E s tate of Fedr i ck , Q u o rum o p era ted u n d er a
m anage m entagr eementthats peci f i cal l y named i tan age ntof the comm uni ty hos pi t al s ubj ect to th e h o s p ita l’ s c o n tr o l a n d d ir e c tio n . E s tate of Fedr i ck , 45 So. 3d at675 ( ¶ 31)
. N o s i m i l ar agr eementi s i n the r ecor d her e. I n B olivar L eflore , the ent i ty atis sue w as aki n t o a
su b sid iar y o f th e c o m m u n ity h o sp it al, an d itw as o w n ed an d co n tr o ll ed b y the h o sp it al. B o livar L eflore , 938 So
. 2d at123 2 (¶ 28 ). C om m un i ty ho spi t al s are defi ned i n the T o rt C l ai m s A ct , thus , a def i ni t i on can be appl i ed t o det erm i ne i f t hey , o r t hei ragent s or i nt erm edi ar i es , f

al l w i thi n i t s scope . T he G uar anty A s s oci at i on i s an ent i r el y di f f er enttype of or gani zat i on.

### 22

¶42. C om p C hoi ce r el i es on s ever al cas es i n w hi ch the C our t hel d that the ent i t i es ati s s ue
w e re n o t in stru m e n talities o f th e sta te: P o p p e n h e im e r v . E sta te o

f Co y le , 98 So. 3d 1059 (M is s . 2 0 1 2 ), Flye v. S

p o tts , 94 So. 3d 240 ( M i s s . 2012) , and K n ig h t v. T

e rr e ll , 961 So. 2d 3 0 (M is s . 2 0 0 7 ). P op

pen h eim er and Fl

ye deal tw i th vol unt eerfi r e depa r t m ent s , and Kni ght addr es s ed a pr i vat e se cur i ty off i cer . I n Fl

ye , the C our the l d thatthe t erm “body corpor at e”
un der the d efi nit i on of “poli t i cal subd i vis i on ” app l i ed “o nly t o g ov ernm ental /pu bli c enti t i es, notpr i vat e. ” Fl

ye , 9 4 S o . 3 d a t 2 4 5 (¶ 9 ). T h e v o lu n tee r fire d e p a rtm e n t w a s a p riv a te e n tity th a t c o n tr a c te d w ith th e c o u n ty to p ro v id e fi re p ro te c tio n s e rv ic e s . I d. at247 ( ¶ 15)
. T he Fl ye C our tci t ed K

n ig h t v. T

e rr e ll , w ritin g th a t i t s to o d “ fo r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t a p riv a te company and i t s empl oyees w ho pr ovi de ‘ governm ent al act i vi t i es ’ vi a contr actw i th a pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on ar e noti m m une f r om l i abi l i ty unde rthe M T C A
. ” I d. at247 ( ¶ 14)
. T he K n ig h t C our thel d, “[ u] nl es s orunt i l the Legi s l atur e expr es s l y cr af t s the s t atut e t o pr ovi de
cons t abul ary i m m uni ty t o i ndependentcontr act or s , w e w i l l notdr af tone w her e i tdoes not exi s t . ” Kni

ght , 961 S o. 2d at33 ( ¶ 12)
. N ot abl y, Sect i on 11- 46- 1 has s i nce be en amended t o i ncl ude vol unt eerf i r ef i ght er s and volunt eerf i r e depa r t m ent s i n the def i ni t i ons of “empl oyee” and “pol i t i cal sub divi s i ons . ” See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 1( f ) , ( i ) ( Supp. 2014)
. I n P oppenheim er , the C our tr el i ed al m os texcl us i vel y on Fl ye and hel d thatthe
v o lu n tee r fire d e p a rtm e n t w a s a n in d e p e n d e n t c o n tra c to r, an d “ a s a p riv a te, n o n p ro fit
or gani zat i on, the vol unt eer f i re depart m entdi d notm eetthe def i ni t i on of

a ‘ pol i t i cal
s ubdi vi s i on. ’ ” P oppenheim er , 98 So. 3d at1064 ( ¶¶ 14, 17) ( ci t i ng Fl ye , 94 So. 3d at244-

### 23

4 8 (¶¶ 5 -15 )). A g ain, th e G u ara n ty A sso ciati o n is q u ite d ifferen t f rom a v o lun teer fi re depart m ent , m aki ng the compar i s on a di f f i cul tone. ¶ 4 3
. Co mp Ch o i c e a l s o a s s e r t s th a tth e Gu a r a n ty As s o c i a t i o n s h o u l d b e l i k e n e d t o M I GA,
w h ich th e C o u rth as h eld is n o t a state ag en cy . W h il e C o m p C h o ice is co rrect th at th e C o u rt h a s s a i d “ M I GA i s n o ta s t a t e a g e n c y [ , ] ” th e c a s e s c i t e d b y Co mp Ch o i c e a r e n o tTo r tCl a i ms A c t c a s e s a n d th e c o n te x ts w e re v e ry d if fe re n t f ro m th e c a s e a t h a n d
. See O wens Cor ning v. Miss. In s. G u a r. A ss’n , 9 4 7 S o . 2 d 9 4 4 , 9 4 5 -4 6 (¶ 5 ) (M iss . 2 0 0 7 ). F o r in sta n c e , in O wens Cor ning , the C o u rt m a d e th e sta tem e n t th a t M IG A w a s n o t a s tate a g e n c y in det erm i ni ng w hetherd efer ence s houl d be gi ven t o M I G A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the I ns ur ance A s s o c ia tio n G u a ra n ty L a w . I d. T he C our tw as notcons i der i ng w hetherM I G A w as s ubj ect t o the pr ot ect i ons of

the TortC l ai m s A ct , and the ca s e does notpr ovi de an a nal ys i s undert he T o rt C la im s A c t. ¶4 4
. C o m p C h o ice b o ldly w ri tes th at “o ther n u m ero u s ca ses o v er the y e a rs a d e q u a tely
su g g e st th a t [th e G u a ra n ty A ss o c iatio n ], a s w e ll a s a n y o th e r g u a ra n ty a ss o c iatio n in M iss iss ip p i, i s n o t en tit led to th e p ro tec tio n s o f M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -1 , e t se q ., a s it is notan i ns trum ent al i ty of the st at e orot herpol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on. ” I n s uppor tof i t s cont ent i on, C om p C ho i ce ci t es Mis s is s i ppiSurplus L in es A ss ociati on v. State of Mis s is s i ppi , 44 2 F. Supp. 2d 335 ( S. D . M i s s . 2006) , and B obby K itchens, I

nc. v. Mis s is s i

ppiI nsur ance G uarant y A s s ociati on , 5 6 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). N eith er c ase stan d s for C o m p C h o ice’s pr opos i t i on, and nei theri s a T or tC l ai m s A ctcas e. I n Mis s is s i ppiSurplus Lines A s s ociati on , al though the Sout hern D i s tr i ctC our ts ai d M SL A w as nota “publ i c body, ” i tconcl uded that

### 24

M S L A ex ist ed for th e so le pu rpo se o f assist ing th e Ins u ran ce C o m m issi o n er, an d the c o u rt ’s
r at i onal e ac tual l y s uppor t s t he po s i t i on thatguar anty as s oci at i ons ar e age nt s or in s tru m e n ta litie s o f th e e n titie s th e y w e re c re a te d to a s s is t. Mis s . Surplus Lines A s s oc. , 442 F. Supp. 2d at339. ¶45. W hi l e the ca s es ci t ed by both part i es pr es entf actual s i tuat i ons and addr es s ent i t i es f ar d i f f e r e n tf r o m th e Gu a r a n ty As s o c i a t i o n , s o me i n s i g h tc a n b e g l e a n e d f r o m a n a l y z i n g t h e m. I n eac h cas e, contr ol by the s t at e ent i ty w as an i m por t antf act ori n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe othere nt i ty w as a n i ns trum ent al i ty of the s t at e. T he G uar anty A s s oci at i on i s notundert he compl et e contr ol of

the C om m i s s i on, buti ti s r equi r ed t o ge tthe C om m i s s i on’ s appr oval f or
m any ac t i ons . I tal s o act s atthe di r ect i on of the C om m i s s i on, evi dence d by i t s i nvol vement i n the i ns t antcas e, as t he C om m i s s i on di r ect ed the G uar anty A ssoci at i on t o t ake ove rt he C o m p C h o ice F u n d . T h e C o m m iss io n a lso a c ts o n th e re c o m m e n d a tio n s o f th e G u a ra n ty A s s oci at i on. Fori ns t ance , the C om m i s s i on i s s ued the or deras s es s i ng $1, 950, 000 t o be d iv id e d a m o n g th e C o m p C h o ic e m e m b e rs a t th e G u a ra n ty A s s o c ia tio n ’s re q u e s t. ¶46. T he G uar anty A s s oci at i on m ai nt ai ns thatthe Legi s l atur e i nt ended i tt o actas an agent of the C om m i ssi on t o carr y outs t atut or i l y es t abl i s hed ac t i vi t i es . Forexampl e, by admi ni s t er i ng C om p C hoi ce pur s uantt o t he C om m i s s i on’ s orde r s , t he G uar anty A s s oci at i on “ca rr i ed out ” s om e of

t he C om m i s s i on’ s r egul at ory f unct i ons . T he G uar anty A s s oci at i on cl ai m s thati s an age ntthr ough w hi ch the C om m i ssi on acc om pl i s hes the day- t o- day
r egul at i on of

s el f
- i ns ur ergr oups , i ncl udi ng: managi ng a nd admi ni s t er i ng the s t atut ory f und
re q u ire d u n d e r S e c tio n 7 1 -3 -1 6 3 (c ) to w h ich a ll g ro u p se lf-in su re rs a re re q u ire d to

### 25

cont r i but e ; a i di ng the Com mi s s i on i n d e t e c t i ng a nd pr e ve nt i ng membe ri ns ol ve nc i e s by
as ki ng the C om m i s s i on t o exami ne gr oups thatitb el i eves ar e i n a haz ar dous f i nanci al condi t i on p ur s uantt o Sect i on 71- 3- 173( a) ; and pr epar i ng r eport s and maki ng
rec o m m en d ati o n s to the C o m m issio n reg ard ing so lven cy o r reo rga n izati o n o f gro u p selfinsu rers p u rsua n t t o S ec ti o n 7 1 -3-1 7 3 (c) an d (d). ¶4 7. The Guar a nty A s s oc i a t i on mai nt a i ns tha ti ti s a n i nt e r medi ar y of t he C om m i s s i on underi t s cont r ol , and i tpr ovi des the f ol l ow i ng exampl es of

over s i ghtand contr ol by t he C om m i ssi on : the C om m i ssi on m ustap prove the G uarant y A ssoci at i on ’s bo ard of di rect ors; the G uar anty A s s oci at i on i s r equi r ed t o s ubm i ta pl an of oper at i on t o the C om m i s s i on f or
a p p ro v a l; th e G u a ra n ty A ss o c iatio n is re g u late d b y th e C o m m iss io n a n d su b jec t to exami nat i on by the C om m i s s i on; the G uar anty A s s oci at i on m us ts ub m i tannual f i nanci al
r eport s t o the C om m i s s i on and make i t s m i nut es and r ecor ds avai l abl e t o the C om m i s s i on. See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 71- 3- 161, 71- 3- 165, 7 1-3-175 ( R ev. 2011)
. T he evi dence of
o v e rsig h t b y th e C o m m iss io n a n d e x a m p les o f a c tiv iti e s p e rfo rm e d b y th e G u a ra n ty A s s oci at i on i ndi cat e thatthe C om m i s s i on ex er t s a s ubs t ant i al amount of contr ol overt he G uar anty A s s oci at i on and thatthe G ua r a nty A s s oci at i on as s i s t s the C om m i s s i on w i th i t s dayt o-day regu l at ory functi on s. ¶48
. T he G uarant y A ssoci at i on fur thers the pu rpose of the C om m i ssi on and the W orkers ’ C om pens at i on L aw , w hi ch i s t o pr ovi de compens at i on f ori nj ur ed empl oyees w i th the goal of re habi l i t at i on and re s t or at i on t o w or k. A ppl yi ng t he br oad def i ni t i on of “i ns trum ent al i ty” f r o m Moz ingo – thatthe Legi s l atur e i nt ended i tt o be “a n i ncl us i ve t erm s o as nott o l i m i tt he

### 26

m eans by w hi ch the s t at e coul d carry outi t s governm ent al f unct i ons , ” i n addi t i on t o t he di ct i onary defi nit i on adopt ed i n B olivar L eflore , thatan i ns trum ent al i ty i s s om ethi ng t hat “s erves as an i nt erm edi ary oragentthr ough w hi ch one orm or e f unct i ons of

a contr ol l i ng f or ce a r e ca r r i ed out ” – I w oul d hol d thatthe G uar anty A s s oci at i on i s an i ns trum ent al i ty of the C om m i ssi on. See Moz ingo , 8 2 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 5 5 (¶ 2 6 ); B olivar L eflore , 938 So. 2d at 1 2 2 8 (¶ 1 6 ). C . I m m uni t y und er Sec t i on 71- 3- 179 ¶ 4 9
. C o m p C h o ice cla im s th a t, b e c a u se the L e g isla tu re inc lu d e d a n im m u n ity p ro v isio n in the Sel f
- I ns ur er s G uar anty L aw , i tdi d noti nt end f orthe G uar anty A s s oci at i on t o be cove r ed undert he Tor tCl a i ms Acta s w e l l
. Se c t i on 71
- 3- 17 9 a dd r e s s e s i mm un i ty a f f or de d t o the G uar anty A s s oci at i on: Subj ectt o Sect i on 71- 3- 17 4, ther e s hal l be no l i abi l i ty on the partof and no caus e of act i on of any natur e sha l l ar i s e agai ns tany i ndi vi dual sel f
- i ns ur er , any g rou p self-i n su rer, asso ciati o n , ag en ts an d em p loy ee s o f an asso ciati o n , b o ard of di r ect or s of

an as s oci at i on, and the comm i s s i on and i t s em ployees and r epr es ent at i ves , orany of them, f orany good f

ai th, a f f i r m at i ve act i on t aken by any of them i n t he per f

or m ance of thei rpow er s and dut i es underSect i ons 71- 3 -15 1 thro u g h 7 1 -3-1 8 1
. T h is sec ti o n d o es n o t app ly to ind ividu al em p loy ers w h o a re m e m b e rs o f a g ro u p se lf-in su re r. S u c h im m u n ity sh a ll n o t ex ten d to an y ac ts of g ross n eg li g en ce b y an y su ch in d iv idu al self- insu rer, g rou p selfinsu rer, asso ciati o n , ag en ts an d em p loy ee s o f an asso ciati o n , b o ard o f directo rs of an associa t i on and the comm i s s i on and i t s empl oyees and r epr es ent at i ve co m m itted in the p erfo rm an ce o f th eir du ti es h ere u n d er. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 179 (Rev. 2011). T he G uar anty A s s oci at i on m ai nt ai ns thatSect i on 71- 3- 179 adds t o t he i m m uni ty provi ded underthe TortC l ai m s A ctand thatthe tw o s ect i ons can b e r ead i n h arm on y. T he G uarant y A ssoci at i on ci t es P arson s v. Missi ssi pp iS tate Po rt

### 27

A u th o rity , 996 So. 2d 165 ( M i s s . Ct
. A pp. 2008) , i n w hi ch the C our tof A ppeal s hel d thatan im m u n ity sta tu te in th e M iss is s ip p i E m e rg e n c y M a n a g e m e n t L a w c o u ld b e re a d in conj unct i on w i th t he TortC l ai m s A ct . T he C our tof A ppeal s w r ot e: A d e t a i l e d r e v i e w o f

th e s e s t a tu t e s l e a d s th i s Co u r tt o c o n c l u d e th a tth e M TCA a n d th e M EM L c a n b e r e a d i n c o n j u n c t i o n wi th e a c h o th e ra n d th a tth e M TCA h a s n o t su p e rse d e d th e M E M L . S tatu te s o n th e sa m e su b jec t, alth o u g h in appar entconf

l i ct , s houl d i f

poss i bl e be cons trued i n har m ony w i th eac h other to g iv e e ff

e c t to e a c h
. R ob ert

s v. Mis s . R epubli can P ar t y State E

xecuti ve Co mm. , 465 So. 2d 1050, 1052 ( M i s s . 1985)
. T he M T C A pr ovi des thati ti s the e x c lu siv e re m e d y a g a in st th e sta te a n d its a g e n c ies a n d , thu s, is a p p lica b le in the i ns t antcas e. H ow ever , underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 11- 46- 9 (1)(f), c laim s th at are li m it ed o r ba rred b y o ther p rov isi o n s o f l aw are exempt ed fr om li abi l i ty underthe M T C A
. T he M E M L i s one s uch l aw that al l ow s the s t at e and i t s agenc i es t o be i m m une f r om l i abi l i ty s t emm i ng f r om it s ac ti v it ies d u ri n g em erg en c y s itu ati o n s. F o ll o w ing the ru les o f st atuto ry cons truct i on, the tw o s t atut es can be r ead t ogethert o pr ovi de i m m uni ty f orthe s t at e and i t s agenc i es fori t s act i vi t i es dur i ng t i m es of emer gency management wh i l e s i mu l t a n e o u s l y b e i n g e x e mp tf r o m l i a b i l i ty u n d e rth e M T CA
. Pars ons , 9 9 6 S o . 2 d at 16 9 (¶ 1 9 ). ¶50. C om p C hoi ce as s ert s that , beca us e the Sel f
- I ns ur er s G uar anty A s s oci at i on L aw w as
enac t ed af

t erthe TortC l ai m s A ctand makes no m ent i on o f i t , then the Legi s l atur e di d not i nt end f orthe TortC l ai m s A ctt o appl y to the G uar anty A s s oci at i on. H ow ever , as t he G uar anty A s s oci at i on poi nt s out , the C our thas s ai d that“[ i ] f the s ubs equents t atut e does not
r epea l the f

or m er , eac h s t atut e ci t ed mustbe gi ven ef f ect . ” Tuni ca Count

y v. H am pton C o. Nat ’l Su r. , LLC , 2 7 S o . 3 d 1 1 2 8 , 1 1 3 4 (¶ 1 6 ) (M iss . 2 0 0 9 ). T h e C o u rt h a s h e ld re p e a ted ly that“s t atut es on the s ame subj ect , al though in app arentconf l i ct , s houl d i f

pos s i bl e be
cons trued i n harm ony w i th eac h othert o gi ve ef f ectt o eac h. ” Mis s . G am in g C om m ’n v. Im perial Pa lace o

f M iss. , 751 S o. 2 d 10 25, 1029 ( M i s s . 1999) ( quot i ng R o b e rts v. Miss.

### 28

R e p u b li c a n P a r t

y S ta te E

x e c u ti v e Co mm. , 465 So. 2d 1050, 1052 ( M i s s . 1985) )
. T he sta tu tes a re , fo r th e m o st p a rt, re d u n d a n t b u t a re n o t in c o n flict, a n d e a c h c a n b e g iv e n e ffe c t. A c c o rd in g ly , in m y o p in io n , the e n a c tm e n t o f th e im m u n ity p ro v isio n in th e G u a ra n ty A ss o c iatio n L a w d o e s n o t ab ro g a te th e im m u n ity in th e T o rt C laim s A c t. C oncl usi on ¶51. C ons i der i ng the purpos e of t he W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on L aw and the br oad def i ni t i on
o f in stru m e n tality – th a t th e L e g isla tu re in ten d e d it t o b e “ a n in c lu siv e ter m so a s n o t to lim it the means by w hi ch the st at e coul d carry outi t s gover nm ent al func t i ons ” – I w oul d hol d t hat the G uar anty A s s oci at i on serves as a n i nt erm edi ary oragentt o carry outcert ai n f unct i ons of the C om m i s s i on and thati ti s an i ns trum ent al i ty of the C om m i s s i on pr ot ect ed by the M iss iss ip p i T o rt C laim s A c t. I w o u ld a ffirm th e c irc u it co u rt’s g ra n t o f th e G u a ra n ty A s s o c ia tio n ’s m o tio n to d is m is s . ¶5 2. T he maj or i t y di s pos es o f the a pp e a l wi tho uta ns w er i ng t he ques t i on pr es ent ed
r e g a r d i n g th e c o n tr o l l i n g p r i n c i p l e o f l a w a n d f

a i l s t o a c c o mp l i s h th e p u rp o s e f o rwh i c h we g ra n t i n te rl o c u to ry a p p e a ls
. See M iss . R . A p p . P . 5 (a ); K il go re , 490 So
. 2d at896
. B ecause t he que s t i on c a n b e a ns w e r e d wi th the f a c t s be f or e us , I w ou l d a ns w e rthe qu e s t i on of l aw pos ed by the part i es , w hi ch w oul d al l ow the part i es a nd c our tbe l ow t o pr ocee d. I ns t ead, t he
m aj or i ty l eave s the part i es i n no bett erpos i t i on, w i th no m or e cl ar i ty on the ques t i on of l aw p re se n ted , tha n w h e n th e y a rriv e d b e fo re th e C o u rt. R e sp e c tfu lly , I d iss e n t. DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , LA M AR AND P I ER CE , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.