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 - CT - 0 1 8 0 7 - S CT SW EE T V AL LE Y M I SSIO N AR Y BA PTIST CH U RC H a/ k/ a H U B C OM M U N I TY BA PTIST
v. ALF A I NSURA NCE CORPORA TI ON a / k / a ALF A G EN ERA L IN

S U RA N C E C O R P O RA T

IO N a /k /a ALF A M UTUAL GENERA L I NSURA NCE COM PANY a / k / a ALF A S PEC I ALT Y I NSURA NCE CORP ORAT

ION ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 24/ 2010 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . R . I. P R IC H A R D , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ARI ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: M AR C L. FRI SCHH ERTZ DA VI D LEE BR EW ER ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: TOB Y J USTI N G AM M I LL W HI T NE Y W AR NE R G L ADDE N J AC OB O. M ALA TEST A NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - I NSURANCE DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S AF F I RMED . T HE J UDGMENT O F T H E M A R IO N C O U N T Y C IR C U IT C O U R T IS R E V E R S E D , A N D T H E C A S E IS R E M A N D E D - 10/ 31/ 2013 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. CO LEM AN, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. S w eetV al l ey M i ssi on ary B apti stC hu rch (Sw eetV al l ey) fi l ed a co m plai nt on A ug ust 29, 2008, agai ns ti t s i ns ur ance carr i er , A l f a I ns ur ance C orpor at i on ( A l f a)
. B as ed on Sw eet

### 2

V al l ey’ s f

ai l ur e t o cooper at e i n di s covery, the tr i al courtent er ed an or derof di s m i s s al on J une 29, 2009. O n Jul y 8, 2009, Sw eetV al l ey f i l ed a mot i on t o s etas i de j udgm ent , or , i n the al t ernat i ve, a mot i on for new t r i al
. T he tr i al courtdeni ed the mot i on on J anuary 29, 2010, and, i n r es pons e, Sw eetV al l ey f i l ed a s econd compl ai ntagai ns tA l f a the sa m e day. T he tr i al
courtdi s m i s s ed the s econd c l ai m bas ed on the expi r at i on of the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons . Sw eet V al l ey appe al ed. O n r ehea r i ng, the C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed the tr i al court ’ s j udgm entand
r emanded f

orf ur therpr ocee di ngs . A l f a f i l ed a pet i t i on f

orw r i tof cert i or ar i , and w e gr ant ed it. W e h o ld th a t a m o tio n filed p u rsu a n t to M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 9 (e ) to lls th e a p p lica b le s tatu te o f lim itatio n s, a n d w e re v e rse th e d e c isio n o f th e trial c o u rt.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2 . S w ee t V all ey fi led a co m p lai n t on A u g u st 29 , 2 0 0 8 , ag ains t A lf a, i ts i n su ran ce ca rri er. Sw eetV al l ey al l eged a br eac h of contr actbas ed on A l f a’ s al l egedl y def

i ci entcover age paymentf

ordamage caus ed by H urr i cane K atr i na. Sw eetV al l ey al l eged thatA l f a’ s payout di d notcoveral l of

i t s l os s es a nd di d notmeeti t s pol i cy l i m i t s a s pr ovi ded i n the i ns ur ance co n tra c t. D u ri n g d isco v ery , p rob lem s aro se w h en o n e o f S w ee t V all ey ’s att o rne y s, M arc Fr i s chhert z, f

ai l ed t o f ol l ow the pr operpr ocedur es t o be admi t t ed t o pr act i ce pr o hac vi ce in M i s s i s s i ppi
. U ndert he bel i ef thathe al r eady ha d been a dm i t t ed t o pr act i ce pr o hac vi ce , Fr i s chhert z s i gned di s covery and expe r tde s i gnat i ons . B eca us e doi ng s o w hi l e notadmi t t ed t o pr act i ce l aw cr eat ed di s covery i s s ues , the tr i al c ou rtdi s mi s s ed Sw eetV al l ey’ s cas e w i thout p re ju d ic e o n J u n e 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 . ¶3. Soon af

t er , on J ul y 8, 2009, Sw eet V al l ey f i l ed a m ot i on t o s et as i de the j udgm entor f ora new tr i al
. A hear i ng w as hel d, a nd on J anuary 29, 2010, the ci r cui tcourtdeni ed Sw eet

### 3

V all ey ’s m o ti o n . O n that sam e d ay , S w ee t V all ey fil ed a n ew co m p lai n t aga inst A lf a. A lf a f i l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s the s econd c om pl ai ntal l egi ng thatw hi l e the t hr ee- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w as t ol l ed dur i ng the f i r s tl aw s ui t , the cl ock r es um ed w hen the s ui tw as di s m i s s ed on J une 29, 2009. T her ef or e, A l f a ar gues t hatt he st atut e of l i m i t at i ons has run as t o Sw eet V al l ey’ s J anuary 29, 2010, compl ai nt . I n i t s or derdi s m i s s i ng the s econd c om pl ai nt , the tr i al
courtdet erm i ned thatSw eetV al l ey had f i l ed i t s m ot i on t o setasi de the j udgm entorf ora new tr i al pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l P r ocedur e 59, and t hatt he m ot i on di d nott ol l the
runni ng of

the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons. A dd i t i on al l y, the tr i al courtf ound thatas of

J une 29, 20 09 , forty-si x d ays rem ai ned on the thr ee-year st atute of l i m i t at i on s, thu s m aking A ug ust 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 , the o p era ti v e d ea d li n e fo r th e fil ing o f new co m p lai n ts. B ec au se S w ee t V all ey ’s
s econd c om pl ai ntw as notf i l ed unt i l J anuary 29, 2010, the tr i al courtdi s m i s s ed the compl ai nt
a s u n tim e ly , a n d S w e e t V a lle y a p p e a le d . W e a s s ig n e d th e c a s e to th e C o u rto f A p p e a ls
. ¶4. T he C ou rto f A pp eal s fi rs taff i rm ed t he t ri al co urt ’s d i smi s s al
. H ow ever , on r ehea r i ng, the C our tof

A ppeal s i s s ued a seco nd opi ni on, r epl aci ng the f i r s t , i n w hi ch the
c o u rta g re e d w ith S w e e t V a lle y ’s c la im th a t its m o tio n w a s tim e ly
. S w eet V all ey Mission ary B aptis t Church v. A l

f a I ns. Cor p. , 2 0 1 0 -C A -0 1 8 0 7 -C O A , 2 0 1 3 W L 1 1 2 2 3 1 0 (M iss . C t. A p p . M a r. 1 9 , 2 0 1 3 ), cer t . gr ant ed , 1 1 5 S o . 3 d 8 0 4 (M iss . 2 0 1 3 ). T h e c o u rt n o ted th a t a R u le 5 9 m o tio n fo r n e w trial to lls th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s o n the u n d e rly in g c laim , jus t as it t o lls the per i od of

appea l s and s us pends the f i nal i ty of j udgm ent s . The C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed the ju d g m en t of th e tri al co u rtd ism issi n g the s ec o n d co m p lai n t and rem an d ed the c ase . A lf a fi le d a p e titio n fo r w ri t o f c e rt io ra ri , w h ic h w e g ra n te d
. DI S CU S S I ON

### 4

¶5. T he i s s ue pr es ent ed by A l f a i s w hetherthe “M ot i on t o Set A s i de J udgm ent or i n the A ltern a tiv e , M o tio n fo r N e w T ria l” filed b y S w e e t V a lley o n Ju ly 8 , 2 0 0 9 , tolle d th e sta tu te
o f l im ita tio n s o n th e u n d e rl y in g c o n tr a c t c la im
. ¶6. T he st and ard of r eview con cerni ng a tri al court ’s grantor denial of a m oti on t o dis m i ss is d e n o v o . Scaggs v. GP C H - GP , I nc. , 931 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (¶6) ( M i s s . 2006)
. “W hen
cons i der i ng a mot i on t o di s m i s s , the al l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntmustbe t aken as true[ , ] and the mot i on s houl d notbe gr ant ed unl es s i tappear s beyond doubtthatthe pl ai nt i f f w i l l be unabl e t o pr ove any s etof f act s i n s uppor tof

hi s cl ai m . ” Id . ( quot i ng L a n gv. B a y S t. L o u is/W a v e la n d S c h . D ist. , 764 So. 2d 1234, 1236 ( ¶ 7) (M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng T .M . v. N o b litt , 6 5 0 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 0 , 1 3 4 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 )). Is s ues i nvol vi ng the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons ar e r evi ew ed d e n o v o . L in coln E lec. Co. v. McL em ore , 5 4 S o . 3 d 8 3 3 , 8 3 5 (¶ 1 0 ) ( M is s . 2 0 1 0 ). ¶7. Sw eet V al l ey ar gues that the tr i al court err ed w hen i t deni ed Sw eet V al l ey’ s m ot i on f ora new tr i al b ased on the expi r at i on of the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons . I ns t ead, Sw eetV al l ey w oul d appl y the dec i s i on of C our tof

A ppeal s , w hi ch det erm i ned thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w as t ol l ed by the f i l i ng of the mot i on on J ul y 8, 2009, unt i l J anuary 29, 2010,
w h e n th e tr ia l c o u rtd e n ie d th e m o tio n . ¶8. T he i s s ue of

w hethera R ul e 59 mot i on t ol l s the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons of

the under l yi ng cl ai m i s one of

f i r s ti m pr es s i on i n M i s s i s s i ppi
. A s the C our ts t at ed i n H il l v. R am s ey , “ [i]t i s el ement ary that , unl es s proc es s i s nott i m el y served, the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s t ol l ed upon the f i l i ng of the com pl ai nt , and does notbegi n t o run a gai n unt i l l i t i gat i on has ended. ” H ill
v. R am s ey , 3 S o . 3 d 1 2 0 , 1 2 3 (¶ 1 0 ) (M iss . 2 0 0 9 ). It h a s lo n g b e e n se ttl e d th a t a tim e ly
m o tio n fo r a n e w tr ia l e x te n d s a ju d g m e n t u n til th e m o tio n is g ra n te d o r d e n ie d
. L a u re l O il

### 5

& Fer tili z erCo. v. McCr aw , 178 M i s s . 117, 172 So. 503 ( 1937)
. I n otherw or ds , R ul e 59( e)
m o tio n s s ta y th e fi n a lity o f j u d g m e n ts a s w e ll a s th e th ir ty -d a y tim e p e ri o d to a p p e a l. B r uce v. B r uce , 5 8 7 S o . 2 d 8 9 8 , 9 0 3 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 ); s ee al s o D avids on v. Hunsicker , 224 M i s s . 203, 7 9 S o . 2 d 8 3 9 (1 9 5 5 ). F u rth e r, “P ro fe ss o r J.W . M o o re h a s a p tly d e sc rib e d the eff e c t o f R u le 59 m ot i on on a pr evi ous l y f i l ed not i ce of

a ppeal : ‘ T he appea l s i m pl y s el f
- des truct s . ’ ” B r uce , 587 So. 2d at901 ( quot i ng 9 Moor e’s Feder alP r act i ce ¶ 2 0 4 . 1 2 [1] , at 4-7 0 , n . 1 7 (19 8 9 )).

“ [I] t is a fa m ili a r p rin c ip le th a t n o sta tu te o f lim ita tio n s ru n s a g a in st a p a rty u n til h e is al l ow ed by l aw t o do the thi ng a s t o w hi ch the s t atut e i s i nt erpos ed. ” Moo re v. Mon t go m ery W ar d & Co. , 1 7 1 M is s . 4 2 0 , 1 5 6 S o . 8 7 5 (1 9 3 4 ). ¶9. I n contr as t , m ot i ons f i l ed underM i s s i s s i ppi Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 60( b) f orr el i ef fr o m a ju d g m e n t d o n o t t o ll th e ti m e f o r a p p e a l o r th e e n fo rc e a b ility o f a ju d g m e n t. B r uce , 587 So. 2d at903. T he C our tof A ppeal s al s o has s peci f i cal l y f ound thatpendi ng m ot i ons fi le d u n d e r R u le 6 0 d o n o t to ll th e s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s . D a v is v. B ilox i S c h o o l D ist. , 43 So. 3d 1135, 1138 ( ¶¶ 9- 10) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2009)
. “I m por t ant l y, a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on does not oper at e as a s t ay . . . . ” M i s s . R . C i v. P. 60 cmt. U nli ke a R ul e 59 mot i on, R ul e 60( b)
m ot i ons m ay be f

i l ed l at erthan t en days af t era j udgm entbutm us tconce rn f r aud,
m isr e p re s e n tatio n , o r o th e r m isc o n d u c t o f a n a d v e rse p a rty ; ac c id e n t o r m ista k e ; n e w ly di s cover ed evi dence thatc oul d notha ve been di s cover ed i n t i m e; orotherr eas ons j us t i f yi ng re lief. M iss . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b ). R u le 5 9 (e ) m o tio n s p ro v id e th e c o u rt w ith th e o p p o rtu n ity to
corr ecti t s ow n err or , w hi l e “Rul e 60( b) m ot i ons , on the ot herhand, pr ocee d on the
as s um pt i on thatthe tr i al courthas en t ere d a val i d and enf or ceabl e j udgm entw hi ch has become f

i nal
. ” B r uce , 5 8 7 S o . 2 d a t 9 0 4 .

### 6

¶10. L ogi cal l y, i t s t ands t o r eas on that i f a R ul e 59 m ot i on t ol l s the per i od f or appea l s and the enf or ceabi l i ty of

a j udgm ent , i tal s o shoul d t ol l t he st atut e of l i m i t at i ons of the under l yi ng cl ai m . I f

thi s i s n ot the rul e, pl ai nt i f f s w ho f i l e R ul e 59 mot i ons r i s k bei ng l ef tw i th no
r emedy i f

thei r m oti on i s deni ed and the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons has run. A s the C our tof A p p e a ls n o ted , “it w o u ld n o t be in th e b e st in ter e st o f ju d icia l ec o n o m y to fo rc e lit ig a n ts w ith
a n im p e n d in g sta tu te o f lim itatio n s to file a n e w c o m p lain t w ith o u t firs t h a v in g th e o p tio n to
m ove t o al t eroramend the j udgm ent . ” Sw eet V al ley M is s ionary B aptis t

Church , 2 0 1 0
- CA
01807- C O A , 2013 W L 1122310, *4 ( ¶ 15)
. T he U
. S. Supr eme C our t , i n O sterneck v. E rnst & W hinney , anal yzed the f

eder al ver s i on of

R ul e 59, w hi ch i s s ubs t ant i al l y s i m i l art o the M i s s i s s i ppi rul e, and hel d thata j udgm enti s notf i nal – even i f

i tmay “appeart o be a f i nal ju d g m e n t” – u n til th e c o u rth a s p ro p e rl y d is p o s e d o f p e n d in g R u le 5 9 m o tio n s . O s terneck
v. E r nst & W hinney , 489 U . S . 169, 174 ( 1989)
. A s not ed pr evi ous l y, the s t atut e of lim itatio n s is t o ll ed u p o n the fil ing o f th e c o m p lai n t and d o es n o t beg in to ru n ag ain u n ti l litig a tio n h a s e n d e d
. H

ill , 3 So. 3d at123 (¶10). B eca us e the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s t ol l ed unt i l l i t i gat i on has ended, R ul e 59 mot i ons s t ay the f i nal i ty of j udgm ent s , and the f

i l i ng of
a Ru l e 5 9 mo t i o n p r e v e n t s th e ru n n i n g o f th e s t a tu t e o f

l i mi t a t i o n s o n th e u n d e r l y i n g c l a i m. B e c a u se it i s c o n sis ten t w ith o u r la w a n d s e rv e s ju d icia l ec o n o m y , w e h o ld th a t a p ro p e rly f i l ed mot i on underRul e 59 c ont i nues the t ol l i ng of the appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w hi ch
occur s w hen a c om pl ai nti s f i l ed. ¶1 1 . B ec au se w e h av e fou n d tha t th e statu te o f lim itatio n s w as toll ed u n ti l th e tr ial co u rt deni ed Sw eetV al l ey’ s R ul e 59( e) m ot i on, the f i l i ng of the s econd compl ai nton the s ame day
w as t i m el y. T he thr ee- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i cabl e t o contr actcl ai m s began on

### 7

O c to b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 , w h e n A lfa p a id S w e e t V a lley $ 9 ,9 5 1 .8 9 , w h ich S w e e t V a lley a lleg e s d id
n o t fu lly sa tisfy it s c laim
. W h e n S w e e t V a lley fil e d it s c o m p lain t on A u g u st 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 , w ith forty-si x d ays rem ai ning u nd er the st atute, the st atute of l i m i t at i on s w as t oll ed u nti l the case
w a s d ism iss e d o n J u n e 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 . T h e s tatu te o f lim itatio n s c o n tin u e d to b e to lled b y th e R u le 59 m ot i on t o al t erora m end the j udgm entunt i l thatmot i on w as deni ed by the tr i al courton J a n u a ry 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 . S we e tVa l l e y f i l e d i t s s e c o n d c o mp l a i n twi th th e tr i a l c o u r to n th e s a me day i t s R ul e 59 mot i on w as deni ed. A ccor di ngl y, the s econd c om pl ai ntw as notbarr ed by th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s. A s th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s is su e is d isp o sitiv e , w e d e c lin e to
a d d re s s S w e e t V a lle y ’s re m a in in g a rg u m e n ts . CO NC L US I ON ¶12. W e hold t hat a t i m el y fi l ed m oti on u nd er R ule 59 cont i nues the t ol l i ng of the
a p p l i c a b l e s t a tu t e o f

l i mi t a t i o n s u n t i l th e c o u r tru l e s o n th e Ru l e 5 9 mo t i o n . As a r e s u l t , we hol d thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n i t s di s m i s s al of Sw eetV al l ey’ s s econd com plai nt, f i l ed on J anuary 29, 2010. T hus , the dec i s i on of the C our tof

A ppeal s i s af

f i rm ed, the j udgm entof the ci r cui tcourti s r ever s ed, a nd the ca s e i s r emanded t o the M ar i on C ounty C i r cui tC our tf or f ur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶ 1 3 . T HE J UD GMEN T OF TH E COU RT OF A P P E A L S I S A F F I RMED . T HE J UDGM EN T OF THE M ARI ON COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT I S RE VE RS ED , AND THE CAS E I S RE M ANDE D. W A LL ER , C. J . , DI CK I NSO N A ND RA ND O LPH , P. J J . , LA M AR , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , AND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR.