I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 0 5 8 5 - S CT GALL AGHER BAS

S ETT S ERVICES

, I NC.
v. GA RY L EE M AL ONE AN

D NA BORSDR I

L L I NG USA , I NC.
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 06/ 2006 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. BI L L Y J OE L ANDR UM COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: J ONES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : M I CH AE L A. HE I L M AN P AT RI CI A J
. KE NNE DY CH RI S T OP HE R T
. GR AHAM ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEES : J OSEPH A
. O’ CO NN ELL M AR K A. NE L S ON RI CH AR D O. BU RS ON DO RI S T. BO BA DI LLA T HOMAS J
. S M I T H T OM M Y S M I T H NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - I NSURANCE 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 - 01/ 07/ 2010 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. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. G ary L ee M alon e’s ri g h t leg w as am p u tat ed be low the k n ee ap p rox im ately tw o y ea rs
a fte r h e su ffe re d a w o rk -re late d in ju ry . S u b se q u e n tly , M a lo n e in stig a ted th is b a d -fa ith l aw s ui tagai ns ts ever al def endant s , i ncludi ng his form er em ployer, N abo rs D ri l l i ng U S A , I nc.A M a ry C a rte r a g re e m e n t is a c o n tra c t w h e re b y the c o n tra c tin g d e fe n d a n t se ttl e s w ith 1 the pl ai nt i f

f , butr emai ns a l i t i ganti n the cas e and w i l l be r ei m bur s ed a s peci f i ed amountof th e p la in tif

f’ s r e c o v e ry f

ro m th e o th e r d e fe n d a n ts . McD ani el v. A nheuser-B usc h, I

nc. , 987 F
. 2 d 2 9 8 (5th C ir
. 1 9 9 3 ). (N a b o rs) , an d a w o rk e rs’ c o m p e n sa tio n in su ra n c e c laim s a d ju ste r, G a llag h e r B a ss e tt S e rv ice s, In c . (G a llag h e r B a ss e tt). M a lo n e a rg u e d th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts’ b a d -fa ith d e lay in payi ng hi s vi abl e w or ker s ’ compensa t i on cl ai m pr oxi m at el y caus ed hi m t o del ay medi cal tr eatm ent , eventual l y r es ul t i ng i n t he l os s of hi s l eg. ¶2. N abor s cr os s - cl ai m ed agai ns t G al l agher B as s ett f or br eac h of contr act , as s ert i ng t hat i tw as a thi rd- party benef i ci ary of a contr actbetw een N abor s ’ s w or ker s ’ compensa t i on i ns ur ance carr i er , C N A I nsur ance Ser vi ces ( C N A ) , and G al l agherB as s ett . N abor s ar gued th a t G a llag h e r B a ss e tt’s b a d -fa ith d e lay in p a y in g M a lo n e ’s w o rk e rs’ c o m p e n sa tio n c laim pr oxi m at el y caus ed N abor s t o i ncurpot ent i al l i abi l i ty and def ens e cos t s f

r om M al one’ s badfa ith law su it. ¶3
. S u b se q u e n tl y , N ab o rs an d M alon e e n ter e d in to a w ritten a g re e m e n t c o m m o n ly
re fe rr e d to a s a “ M a ry C a rt e r” s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n t, in w h ic h N a b o rs p a id M a lo n e $ 1 .5 1
m i l l i on and r emai ned a l i t i ganti n the cas e. I n the s ett l ementagr eement , the part i es agr eed th a t N a b o rs’ s lia b ili ty to M a lo n e aro se o u t of G a llag h e r B a ss e tt’s b a d -fa ith fa ilu re to tim e ly p a y M a l o n e ’ s wo r k e r s ’ c o mp e n s a t i o n c l a i m. ¶4. A f

t era tr i al i n t he C i r cui tC our tof J ones Count y, the j ury f ound G al l agherB as s ett and N abor s l i abl e f

orba d f ai th i n ha ndl i ng M al one’ s w or ker s ’ c om pens at i on c l ai m and aw ar ded compensa t ory damages t o M al one i n the amountof $250, 000. T he j ury a l s o f ound G al l agherI ti s undi s put ed thatM al one had l ongs t andi ng m edi cal pr obl ems atthi s l ocat i on on 2 h is rig h t l e g fo r w h ich h e h a d rec e iv e d p rio r m e d ica l tre a tm e n t. T h e d e p o sitio n o f h is fa m ily phys i ci an, D r . W i l l i am M oak, r evea l s thatD r . M oak had tr eat ed the s i t e on s ever al occa s i ons fo r sk in in fe c tio n a n d , late r, fo r o ste o m y e lit is, a n in fe c tio n o f th e b o n e . D r. R o c c o B a rb ier i, an or thopedi s t , t es t i f

i ed thatM al one r eport ed a tw enty- yearhi s t ory of pr obl ems atthe s i t e. 3 B asse ttli ab le t o N ab o rs on th e cro ss-claim for brea ch of co n tr ac t an d aw ard ed co m p en sato ry d a m a g e s in th e a m o u n t o f $ 1 .2 5 m ill io n . G a llag h e r B a ss e tt ap p e a ls; M a lo n e a n d N a b o rs b o th
c ro ss -a p p e a l. FACTS ¶ 5
. M a lo n e w o rk e d fo r N a b o rs a s a m o to rm a n o n a n o il rig in Jo n e s C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. Na b o r s , a n o i l a n d g a s d r i l l i n g c o mp a n y , h a d wo rk e r s ’ c o mp e n s a t i o n i n s u r a n c e wi th CN A In su ra n c e C o m p a n y (C N A ). C N A h a d a c laim s-s e rv ice ag re e m e n t w ith G a llag h e r B a ss e tt underw hi ch G al l agherBass ettw oul d adj us tN abor s ’ s w or ker s ’ compensa t i on cl ai m s dur i ng tim e s re lev a n t to th is a p p e a l. ¶6. W e s etoutthe f

act s l eadi ng up t o M al one’ s i ns t i gat i on of thi s l aw s ui ti n the f

ol l ow i ng tim e lin e : Jul y 28, 2000 – M al one s truck hi s f r ontl ow err i ghtl eg on a beam atw or k and s uf f er ed a c utatthe s i t e of

a r ecurr ents ki n i nf

ect i on. M al on e re por t ed the

2 i nj ury t o hi s supervi s or , B obby W al l ace , w ho puta B and- A i d on the cut , f i l l ed outan i nci dentr eport , and not i f i ed hi s s upervi s or , R ob H ol br ook. A ugust 7, 2000 – M al one vi s i t ed hi s f ami l y phys i ci an, D r . W i l l i am M oak, w ho r ecomm ended thatM al one kee p the cutcl ean a nd bandage d. A ugust 14, 2000 – A ta f ol l ow - up vi s i t , D r . M oak obser ved t hatone ce n ti m eter o f M alon e’s sh in b o n e w as e x p o sed in th e m id d le o f the cu t. D r. M o a k in fo rm e d M a lo n e th a t h e n e e d e d s k in -g ra ft s u rg e ry a n d re fe rre d h im to the Southern B one and J oi ntC l i ni c.M al on e t est i fi ed that , no t on ly d id H olbr oo k ref use t o all ow him t o seek w orkers ’ 3 comp ensat i on b enef

i t s , butW al l ace t ol d hi m nott o t el l anyone a tthe di s tr i ctof f i ce ort he c o rpo rate office ab o u t h av ing rece ived m ed ical tr ea tm en t, be ca u se the ri g w o u ld lo se its s af ety bonus f

orthatper i od i f

ther e w as a w or ker s ’ compensa t i on i nj ury.

4 A ugust 15, 2000 – M al one i nf or m ed W al l ace thathe neede d s ur gery; W al l ace i ns truct ed hi m t o di s cus s the mat t erw i th H ol br ook. A ugust 16, 2000 – G al l agherB as s ett ’ s cl ai m s adj us t er , D ebor ah R obi chaux, c a lled W a llac e to d isc u ss M a lo n e ’s in ju ry . W a llac e inf

o rm e d R o b ich a u x th a t, alth o u g h M alon e h ad cu t his l eg a t w o rk a n d h e n ee d ed su rge ry, M alon e’s need f ors ur gery m i ghtbe at tr i but abl e t o hi s pre - exi s t i ng condi t i on. A f t erthe t el ephone c onver s at i on, R obi chaux di d no t hing f ur thert ow ar d i nves t i gat i ng M a l o n e ’ s p o t e n t i a l wo r k e r s ’ c o mp e n s a t i o n c l a i m. A ugust 16, 2000 – D r. K eith M elan co n an d D r. R o cc o B arb ieri at th e S o u thern B one and J oi ntC l i ni c r ecomm ended thatM al one have s ur gery. A ugust 16, 2000 – M al one di s cus s ed hi s ant i ci pat ed s ur gery w i th H ol br ook. A ccordi ng t o M alon e, H olbr oo k ref used to al l ow him t o m ake a w orkers ’ c o m p e n sa tio n c laim fo r th e su rg e ry . In c o n tra st, H o lb ro o k tes tified th a t, 3 a lth o u g h M a lo n e h a d in fo rm e d h im th a t h e n e e d e d su rg e ry , M a lo n e d id n o t tell h im th e n e e d fo r su rg e ry w a s a ttribu tab le to h is w o rk -re late d leg in ju ry . It i s undi s put ed thatM al one as ked H ol br ook t o appr ove hi s w or ki ng ei ghtw eeks i n a r ow i n or dert o have e i ghtw eeks of f t o r ecover fr om the s ur gery; H o lb ro o k a p p ro v e d th e re q u e st. A ugust 30, 2000 – D r . B arbi er i di agnos ed M al one w i th a bone i nf ect i on k n o w n a s c h ro n ic o s te o m y e litis , a n d in fo rm e d h im th a t d e lay in g su rg e ry w o u ld r i s k th e l o s s o f

h i s l e g . Af

t e rth i s v i s i t , Ma l o n e wo r k e d e i g h twe e k s i n a r o w. O ct ober 23, 2000 – D r. B arb ieri p erfo rm ed a b o n e scra p ing an d a sk in-g raft su rg e ry o n M a lo n e ’s le g w o u n d . M a lo n e ’s f a m ily m e d ica l in su re r p a id h is m edical exp enses. January 24, 2001 – M al one f el l and br oke hi s i nj ur ed l eg; he suf fer ed co n ti n u ing p rob lem s w ith h is l eg there after.I n t he eventof an i nj ury w hi ch caus es l os tt i m e i n exce s s of f i ve days , M i s s i s s i ppi 4 C od e S ect i on 71 -3- 67 requi res the em ployer t o fil e a repo rtw i th the M i ssi ssi pp i W orkers ’ C om pens at i on C om m i s s i on on a f or m appr oved by the C om m i s s i on. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 67 ( R ev. 2000)
. T hi s f or m i s c om m onl y know n a s a “ B
- 3" f or m . Ther e w as no evi dence thatN abor s had compl et ed a B-3 f or m pr i ort o N ovember27, 2001.

5 January 31, 2001 – N a b o rs term inated M alon e d u e to h is i n ab il ity to return t o w or k due t o a non- w or k- r el at ed i nj ury. F ebruary 26, 2001 – M a lo n e a p p lied fo r so c ial s e c u rity b e n e fits; in h is appl i cat i on, he s w or e thathe ha d notf i l ed a w or ker s ’ c om pens at i on cl ai m , nor di d he pl an t o do s o. N ovem ber 19, 2001 – M al one cont act ed N abor s ’ s s af ety di r ect or , J erry Pool e, and i nf or m ed hi m he w as r eady t o r eturn t o w or k af t erthe i nj ury. N ovem ber 27, 2001 – Pool e com pl et ed a “B-3 f i r s tr eportof

i nj ury” f or m and 4 fa x e d th e fo rm to R o b ich a u x a t G a llag h e r B a ss e tt. D ece m ber 5, 2001 – G al l agherBass ettopened a cl ai m f i l e and s entm edi cal r el eas e f or m s t o M al one. January 9, 2002 – N ab o rs en tered info rm a ti o n co n ce rnin g M alon e’s injury i nt o i t s i nci dent s dat abas e. June 21, 2002 – R ob i chau x closed the clai m fi l e on M al on e’s i njury b ecause s h e h a d n e v e r r e c e iv e d m e d ic a l r e c o rd s fr o m M a lo n e . Jul y 12, 2002 – M al on e f i l ed a pe t i t i on t o contr overtw i th the M i s s i s s i ppi W o rke rs’ C o m p en sati o n C o m m issi o n (th e C o m m issi o n ). Jul y 23, 2002 – R obi chaux r eopene d t he cl ai m fi l e af t erbei ng not i f

i ed of the p e tit io n to c o n tro v e rt. A ugust 19, 2002 – D r. B arbi er i amput at ed M al one’ s i nj ur ed l eg bel ow the knee due t o a r ecurr ence of i nf ect i on. Sept em ber 9, 2002 – G a llag h e r B a ss e tt se t M a lo n e ’s c laim fo r p a y m e n t o f fu ll w or ker s ’ compensa t i on i ndemni ty and medi cal benef i t s . Subse quent l y, the C om m i s s i on ent er ed an or derr ecogni zi ng thatM al one had rec ei ved a ne t6

b a lan c e o f $ 1 1 1 ,6 8 4 .2 2 in in d e m n ity b e n e fits a fte r su b tr a c tin g su m s p a id to him i n p enalt i es and int eres t , and his att orney’s f ees. D ece m ber 3, 2003 – M a lo n e filed th e in sta n t b a d -fa ith la w su it in th e C irc u it C o u rt o f Jo n e s C o u n ty , alle g in g th a t th e d e fe n d a n t’s d e lay in p ro c e ss in g th is w or ker s ’ compensa t i on cl ai m caus ed hi s i nj ur ed l eg t o det er i or at e t o the poi nt thati tr equi r ed amput at i on. A
. P r e- tr i alpr ocee di ngs ¶7
. O n Se pt e mber 30 , 20 05 , N a bo r s c r os s - c l a i med a ga i ns t G a l l a gh e r Bas s e t t , a s s er t i ng i tw as a thi rd- party benef i ci ary of G al l agherB as s ett ’ s contr actw i th C N A
. N abor s ar gued thatG al l agherB as s ett ’ s bad- f ai th del ay i n payi ng the cl ai m had pr oxi m at el y caus ed M a lo n e ’s d a m a g e s, a n d it so u g h t to re c o v e r fro m G a lla g h e r B a ss e tt all c o sts it i n c u rre d in th e d e f e n s e o f M a l o n e ’ s b a d
- f

a i th c l a i m. ¶8. O n O ct ober 15, 2005, M al one and N abor s ent er ed i nt o a M ary C art er agr eementt hat
re s o lv e d a ll c la im s b e tw e e n th e m . In th e a g re e m e n t, N a b o rs a g re e d to p a y M a lo n e $ 1 .5
m i l l i on f orhi s phys i cal i nj ur i es caus ed by the bad- f ai th act i ons of

G al l agh erB as s ett , and N abor s r es erved the r i ghtt o cont i nue as a def endanti n the m att er . The part i es f ur theragr eed that N abo rs w ou l d recei ve the f i rs t$2 5 0 , 00 0 o f any sum s aw arded t o either party ag ai nst Ga l l a g h e rBas s e tt , a n d M a l o n e a n d Na b o r s wo u l d d i v i d e e q u a l l y a n y a d d i t i o n a l s u ms
aw ar ded t o ei therparty. ¶9
. O n N ovember 2, 20 05 , Gal l a gh e rBas s e t tf i l e d a c r os s - c l a i m aga i ns tN abor s t hat
s o u g h t in d e m n if

ic a tio n fo r a n y d a m a g e s a ri s in g o u t o f M a lo n e ’s b a d -f a ith c la im
.7

B
. The tr i al ¶10. A ttr i al , M al one s oughtt o pr ove thatG al l agherBass ett ’ s f ai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e and pay hi s l egi t i m at e w or ker s ’ compensa t i on cl ai m had ca us ed hi m t o del ay the s ur gery, w hi ch p rox im ately c au se d th e a m p u tat ion o f his leg. H e p rese n ted th e e x p ert t esti m o n y o f D r. M el ancon, w ho t es t i f

i ed t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of m edi cal cert ai nty thatthe del ay ca us ed an i ncr eas e i n i nf

ect i on thatnece s s i t at ed aggr es s i ve surge ry, and ca us ed orcontr i but ed t o t he
a m p u tatio n . N a b o rs a ttem p ted to sh o w th a t G a llag h e r B a ss e tt’s fa ilu re to p ro m p tly i nv est i gate and p ay the cl ai m aft er A ug ust16 , 20 00 , proxim at el y cau sed M al on e’s dam ages,
cons t i tut ed a br eac h of G al l agherB as s ett ’ s contr actw i th C N A , and pr oxi m at el y caus ed N a b o rs’ s lia b ili ty to M a lo n e . G a llag h e r B a ss e tt’s p o sitio n w a s th a t it h a d n o d u ty to inv esti g ate the claim u n ti l N o v em b er 2 7 , 2 0 0 1 , w h en P o o le fax ed the B -3 first -rep o rt -ofi nj ury f or m t o R obi chaux. C
. The j ur

y ve r di ct s and pos t - tr i alpr ocee di ngs ¶11. A f

t eral l part i es had r es t ed attr i al , t he j ury as s es s ed compens at ory damages t o M al one i n t he a mountof

$2 50 , 00 0. The j ury a l l oc a t e d f a ul ta s f ol l ows: 42
. 5 p e r c e ntt o Gal l agher B as s ett , 42. 5 per centt o N abor s , and 15 per centt o M al one. A ppl yi ng thes e per cent ages of f aul t , the tr i al c our te nt er ed f i nal j udgm ent s i n f

avorof M al one aga i ns tN abor s and G al l agher B as s etti n t he amount s of $106, 250 eac h. ¶12. T he j ury al s o f

ound for N abo rs o n i t s cross -cl ai m agai ns tG al l agherB as s ett and
as s es s ed damages i n the amountof $1. 25 m i l l i on. T he tr i al courte nt er ed a f i nal j udgm ent on thi s ver di ct . The tr i al courtdecl i ned t o s ubm i tthe i s s ue of puni t i ve damages t o the j ur y.8

A f t erthe entr y of

f i nal j udgm ent , G al l agherB as s ettm oved f ora s et - of

f and f orj udgm ent notw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct( JN O V )
. M al one moved f ora JN O V , addi tur , or a new t r i al on damages , and N abor s m oved f ora JN O V s eeki ng addi tur . T he tr i al courtdeni ed al l pos t - tr i al
m oti on s. A N A L Y S IS ¶13. W hi l e the part i es r ai s e m ul t i pl e i s s ues bef or e thi s C our t , the mostchal l engi ng i s s ue
w e f ace i s thatw e ar e conf r ont ed w i th j ury ve r di ct s w hi ch r ef l ectc ontr adi ct i on and i ncons i s t ency. T he j ury w as a s ked t o c ons i derboth the i ndepende ntt or tof bad- f ai th deni al of a w or ker s ’ compensa t i on cl ai m and a s epar at e cl ai m , pur el y contr actual i n natur e, betw een
em ployer N abo rs an d adjust er G al l agh er B assett . Itis o ur du ty t o harm on i ze t hese ve rdi ct s, if a t a ll p o s s ib le
. See G al li ck v. B altim or e & O hi o R . R . Co. , 3 7 2 U .S . 1 0 8 , 1 1 9 , 8 3 S . C t. 6 5 9 , 9 L
. E d
. 2 d 6 1 8 (19 6 3 ). ¶14. O n the one hand, the j ury r eturned a ver di ct i n f avor of M al one and al l ocat ed f aul tat 42. 5 per centeac h t o N abor s and G al l agherB as s ettand est abl i s hed M al one’ s damages i n the amount of

$250, 000. T he j ury’ s s econd ver di ctf ound, on a theory of

breach o f c ont r act
a n d /o r in d e m n ity (th e ju ry w a s in stru c ted o n b o th ), th a t G a llag h e r B a ss e tt w a s lia b le to N abor s f or$1. 25 mi l l i on – a f

i gur e f i ve t i m es the amount w hi ch the j ury had es t abl i s hed as
r eas onabl e damages t o M al one. ¶1 5
. A d d it ion all y , jury instruction D -34 (an instruction p rese n ted b y N ab o rs) told the jury thatin order t o fi nd f

orN abor s on thei rcl ai m , i tm us tf i nd “thatnothi ng N abor s D r i l l i ng, U
. S
. A
. , L
. P
. , d id co n tr ibu ted to the d am ag es, if an y , su ffered b y M alon e. . . . ” T h e jury ’s9

fin d in g th a t N a b o rs w a s a s m u c h a t fa u lt as G a llag h e r B a ss e tt c lea rly is in d ire c t co n flict w ith i t s f i nd i ng that N abo rs did nothi ng w hich con tri bu t ed to M al on e’s dam ages. ¶16. I n pos t - tr i al mot i ons , M al one ar gued i nt eral i a f oraddi tur , cl ai m i ng thatthe ver di ct
w as the resul t of b ias a nd con fusi on res ult i ng fr om con fl i ct i ng j ury i nst ruct i on s. N abo rs , pos t - tr i al , addi t i onal l y s oughta ddi tur . G al l agherBass ett , i n pos t - tr i al m ot i ons , ar gued that both ver di ct s f

ai l as a mat t erof

l aw , and poi nt ed t he cour tt o the contr adi ct i ons r ai s ed by the verdi ct s. T he tr i al cou rtden i ed all po st -tri al m oti on s. ¶17. W e have done ourbes tt o r econc i l e the ver di ct s af t eran exe get i c r evi ew of the r ecor d,
es peci al l y conce ntr at i ng on the j ury i ns truct i ons , j ury ver di ct , and the pos t - tr i al m ot i on s. H ow ever , w e ar e l ef

tw i th t he i nes capa bl e concl us i on t hatthe j ury obvi ous l y w as ( as M al one
assert ed in post -tri al m oti on s) con fused. U l t i m at el y, w e conclude thatthere i s no w ay these tw o v e rd icts c a n b e re c o n c iled , as th e y c re a te a n u n c e rta in ty th a t is fu n d a m e n ta lly
u n a c c e p tab le. A fte r c a re fu l co n sid e ra tio n , w e fin d th a t th e a p p ro p ria te r e m e d y is to v a c a te b o th ju d g m e n ts a n d re m a n d th is c a s e fo r a n e w tr ia l. See Ga l lic kv. Ba ltimor e & O h i o R. R. Co. , 3 7 2 U
. S
. 1 0 8 , 1 1 9 , 8 3 S
. C t. 6 5 9 , 9 L
. E d
. 2 d 6 1 8 (19 6 3 ) (ru li n g that ap p ell ate c o u rt s are f r ee t o r emand f

ornew tr i al w hen the j ury del i ver s i ncons i s t entver di ct s thatcannotbe h a rm o n ize d ); see al

so G or do n v. D e

ge l m ann , 29 F. 3d 295, 298- 99 ( 7th C i r . 1994) ( rul i ng th a t “ [t] h e re is n o p rio rity a m o n g in c o n sis ten t v e rd icts . . .[an d ] th e p ro p e r th in g to d o is to h o ld a n e w tria l w ith re sp e c t to a ll aff e c ted p a rties ” ); W

ood v. Holiday I

nns, I nc. , 508 F. 2d 167, 175 ( 5th C i r . 1975) (rul i ng t hat“[ w ] her e ver di ct s i n the s ame cas e ar e i ncons i s t enton their face s ind icati n g that the ju ry w as c o n fuse d , a n ew tr ial is certainly a p p rop ri ate. . . . ”)T h re e h o u rs in to d e lib e ra tio n s, th e ju ry s e n t a n o te to th e c o u rt in q u irin g “ W h o w ill 5 pay G ary M al one’ s f

utur e medi cal expens es , N abor s orN abor s ’ s i ns ur ance company?” M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 4 2 (b ) p ro v id e s th a t: 6 [t] h e co u rt, in fu rth e ra n c e o f co n v e n ien c e o r to av o id p re ju d ice , o r w h e n s e p a ra te tr i al s w i l l be conduc i ve t o expedi t i on and economy, m ay or dera se par at e tr i al of any cl ai m , cr os s - cl ai m , count er cl ai m , orthi r d- party cl ai m , orof a ny s epar at e i s s ue orof any nu m ber of cl ai m s, cross -cl ai m s, cou nter -cl ai m s, thir d-party clai m s, or i ssues, al w ays pre s ervi ng i nvi ol at e t he r i ghtof tr i al by j ury as dec l ar ed by S ect i on 31 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on of 1890. M iss. R
. C iv. P. 42 (b). 10 ¶18. A ppar ent l y, al l part i es e l ect ed f ors tr at egi c r eas ons t o try both the bad- f ai th cl ai m and the br eac h- of

- contr act/ i ndemni ty cas es t ogether, m aki ng f ul l di s cl os ur e t o the j ury of t he
s et t l e menta gr e e mentbe tw e e n Nabo r s a nd M a l on e . The c a s e pr e s e nt e d mul t i pl e l e ga l theo ri es, an d the re su ltw as a co m p let ely c o n fuse d jury
. O u r ru les p rov ide th at a tri al co u rt 5 has br oad di s cr et i on t o cons ol i dat e oror ders epar at e tr i al s f ora cr os s - cl ai m . M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 42( b)
. S epar at e t r i al s ar e appr opr i at e w hen nece s s ary t o avoi d undue conf us i on f ort he 6 j ury. W hati s cl ear l y evi denti n re tr os pectw as per haps notso obvi ous t o t he cour tand t he att orneys att he out s et . U pon re m and, w e str ongl y urge t he t r i al courtt o cons i ders ever i ng N a b o rs’ s c ro ss -c laim fo r tria l. CO NC L US I ON ¶19. T he j udgm ent s of the ci r cui tcou rtare r eversed and rem and ed for proceed i ngs
cons i s t entw i th t hi s opi ni on. ¶20. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D.11

W A L L E R , C .J ., C A R L S O N , P .J ., D I C K I N S O N A N D K I T C H E N S , J J ., C O N C U R . G R A V E S , P .J ., C O N C U R S I N R E S U L T O N L Y . C H A N D L E R , J ., DI S S ENTS W I TH S EPARATE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON . RAN DO LPH AND PI ERCE, J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . CH AN DL E R, J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶21
. W i th res pect forthe m aj ori ty, I w o u ld rev erse an d ren d er the judgm ents against G al l agherB as set t . I w oul d f i nd thatther e w as i ns uf f i ci entevi dence of

gr os s negl i gence , m al i ce, orr eckl es s di s r egar d f orthe r i ght s of

M al one t o s uppor tthe ve rdi cti n hi s f avor agai ns tG al l agherB as s ett . I w oul d furtherfi nd t hat , undert he f act s pre s ent ed, ther e w as no l egal theory thatenabl ed N abor s t o r ecove rd am ages f r om G al l agherB as s ettf orbr eac h of
con tract . B ecause the ev i den ce p res ented at the tr i al w as i nsuff i ci ent t o sup po rtthe v erdi ct s,
a n e w tr ia l is u n w a rr a n te d
. ¶2 2
. G a llag h e r B a ss e tt sp e c ifica lly c h a llen g e d th e su ffi cien cy of th e e v id e n c e a s to M a lo n e ’s c laim w ith its m o tio n fo r a d ire c ted v e rd ict a t th e c lo se o f e v id e n c e , an d a s to N abor s ’ s cl ai m w i th i t s m ot i on f ora JN O V
. T he deni al of a di r ect ed ver di ctand the deni al
o f a m o tio n fo r a JN O V a re re v ie w e d u n d e r t h e s a m e s ta n d a rd
. Tupelo R edev. A gency v. G r ay Cor p. , I nc. , 972 So. 2d 495, 514 ( M i s s . 2007)
. T hi s C our thas s t at ed: T he s t andar d of

r evi ew f

orthe deni al of

a di re ct ed ver di ctand a j udgm ent n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e v e rd ic t is th e s a m e . A la. G r eat S. R . R . Co. v. L ee , 826 So. 2d 1232, 1235 ( M i s s . 2002)
. “Thi s C our tw i l l cons i derthe evi dence i n the li g h t m o st fav o rab le t o th e ap p ell ee , givin g th at pa rty th e b en efit of a ll f avor abl e i nf

er ence [ s ] thatmay be r eas onabl y dr aw n f r om the evi dence
. ” I

d. at1235 ( quot i ng Steel

e v. I nn of Vi cks burg, I

nc. , 69 7 S o. 2d 37 3, 37 6 (M i ss. 1997) )
. “I f

the evi dence i s s uf

f i ci entt o s uppor ta v erdi cti n f avorof the non- m ovi ng party, the tr i al courtpr oper l y deni ed the mot i on. ” Hens on v. R o b e rts , 6 7 9 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 1 , 1 0 4 4 -1 0 4 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). In otherw or ds , thi s C our tconsi der s “w hetherthe evi dence , as appl i ed t o the12

el em ent s of

a party' s cas e, i s ei thers o i ndi s put abl e, ors o def i ci ent , thatthe nece s s i ty of

a t r i erof f

acthas been obvi at ed. ” W hite v. Stew m an , 932 So. 2d 2 7 , 3 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). Spotlite Skating R ink, I nc. v. B ar nes ex r el

. B ar nes , 9 8 8 S o . 2 d 3 6 4 , 3 6 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). 1. The W

orker s ’C om pens at i on A ct

and the tor tof

bad- f ai th f ai l ur e to pay w orkers’com

pen sat i on ben ef

i t s. ¶23. A r evi ew of pert i nentpr ovi s i ons of the M i s s i s s i ppi W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on A ct and of ourbad- fai t h l aw i s w arr ant ed. T he A ctpr ovi des thatcompensa t i on i s payabl e f or

“ d isa b ili ty o r d e a th o f an em p lo y e e fro m inju ry o r o c c u p a tio n a l dis e a se aris in g o u t of a n d in the cour s e of

empl oym ent , w i thoutr egar d t o f aul tas t o the ca us e of the i nj ur y or occupa t i on a l di s e a s e . ” M i s s . Code A nn . § 7 1- 3- 7 ( Rev. 20 00 )
. The f i r s ti ns t a l l mentof compensa t i on becomes due on t he f our t eenth day af

t ert he em pl oyerhas not i ce of the i nj ur y, buta n e m pl oyerdi s put i ng the r i ghtt o c om pens at i on may f i l e a pe t i t i on t o contr overtw i t h t he C o m m issi o n o n o r be fore the d ay the firstinstall m en t i s du e. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 1 -3-3 7 (2), ( 4) ( R ev. 2000)
. A ut om at i c pena l t i es f orl at e payment s ar e as s es s ed i n the amountof t en per centf orpa ym ent s notmade pur s uantt o a n a w ar d, a nd tw enty per centf orpayment s m ade p u rs u a n t to a n a w a rd . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 7 1 -3 -3 7 (5 ), ( 6 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 0 ). ¶2 4. Sect i on 71- 3- 9 of the M i s s i s s i pp i W orke r s ’ Compe ns a t i on Actmak e s the A ct t he
e x c lu s iv e r e m e d y a v a ila b le to a n e m p lo y e e w h o h a s s u ff e re d a w o rk -r e la te d in

ju ry . Mil

ler
v. McRae'

s, I nc . , 44 4 S o. 2d 36 8, 37 0 (M i ss. 19 84 ). S ect i on 71 -3- 9 p rovi des: T h e liab ili ty o f a n e m p lo y e r to p a y c o m p e n sa tio n sh a ll b e e x c lu siv e a n d in pl ace of al l o t herl i abi l i ty of s uch empl oyert o the empl oyee, hi s l egal r epr es ent at i ve, hus band orw i f e, pa r ent s , de pendent s , ne xt - of
- ki n, a nd anyone otherw i s e ent i t l ed t o r ecove rdamages atcom m on l aw or otherw i s e f r om s uch13

e m p lo y e r o n a c c o u n t o f su c h inju ry o r d e a th , e x c e p t th a t i f an em p lo y e r fa ils t o s ecur e paymentof

com pens at i on as r equi r ed by thi s chapt er , an i nj ur ed empl oyee, orhi s l egal re pr es ent at i ve i n cas e death re s ul t s f r om the i nj ury, m ay el ectt o cl ai m compensa t i on unde rthi s c hapt er , ort o mai nt ai n a n act i on atl aw f ordam ages on acc ountof s uch i nj ury ordeath. I n s uch ac t i on the def endant m ay n o t plead as a d efe n se th at th e inju ry w as c au se d b y the n eg li g en ce o f a f el l ow s ervant , northatthe empl oyee as s um ed the r i s k of hi s empl oym ent , nor thatthe i nj ury w as due t o t he contr i but ory negl i gence of the empl oyee. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 9 ( R ev. 2000)
. R egar di ng the exc l us i vi ty pr ovi s i on, i th as bee n sta ted th a t: T hr ee mai n themes make up the “c om pens at i on pr i nci ple” t hatunder l i es w o rke rs’ co m p en sati o n law s. T h e e m p loy er p rov ides b e n efit s for w o rk in ju rie s w ith o u t re g a rd to fa u lt; th e b e n e fits a re lim ited to th o se p re sc rib e d in the s t atute, an d t he empl oyee gi ves up a comm on l aw t or tcl ai m f orthe co m p en sab le i n

jury ag ains t th e e m p loy er in e x ch an g e fo r the em p loy er’s providi ng the n o-f

aultben efi t s. Jo h n R
. B rad ley & L ind a A
. T h o m p so n , M issi ssipp i W o rke rs’ C o m p en sati o n § 1 1 :1 (2 0 0 7 ). ¶25. I n T

aylorv. U

. S. Fidelit

y & G uarant

y Co. , 4 2 0 S o . 2 d 5 6 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ), this C o u rt
re v iew e d a trial c o u rt’s d ism iss a l of an em p lo y e e ’s la w su it a g a in st a ca rrie r f o r b a d -f a ith del ay i n payi ng w or ker s ’ compensa t i on benef i t s . T he compl ai nthad al l eged thatthe ca r r i er “negl i gent l y, car el es s l y, w r eckl es s l y [ s i c] , w i l l f ul l y and haz ar di ous l y [ s i c] , f ai l ed, r ef us ed and negl ect ed t o pr oces s l egi t i m at e medi cal cl ai m s . . . , ” ca us i ng m ent al di s tr es s and
e x a c e rb a tio n o f p h y s ic a l p a in
. I d. at564. T he C our tdet erm i ned thatthe Legi s l atur e had in te n d e d th a t a to rt a c tio n o f t h is k in d b e s u b je c t to th e e x c lu s iv ity c la u s e . I d. at566. ¶26. I n Sout

he r n Far m Bure au Casualt y Ins ur anc e Co. v. Hol land , 469 So. 2d 55, 59 ( M i s s . 1984) , thi s C our tl i m i t ed T aylorby f

i ndi ng thatthe A ct ’ s e xcl us i vi ty c l aus e does not baran i nj ur ed w or ker ’ s act i on agai ns ta w or ker s ’ compensa t i on i ns ur ance carr i er f ort he14

com m i ssi on o f an int enti on al tor t . H oll and h ad al l eged thatshe had suff ered m ental dis tres s
c a u se d b y th e c a rrie r’s ter m in a tio n o f h e r b e n e fits, th a t th e c a rrie r h a d ter m in a ted h e r b e n e fits i n or dert o f

or ce a n i nadequa t e s ett l eme ntof hercl ai m , and thatthe ca rr i er ’ s act i ons amount ed t o t or t i ous br eac h of contr act , br eac h of

f i duci ary dut i es , and an i nt ent i onal in fl ic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . I d. R el yi ng upon T

aylor , the ca rr i erar gued thatthe ac t i on
w a s b a rr e d b y S e c tio n 7 1 -3 -9
. I d . T hi s C our tdi s t i ngui s hed T aylor , sta tin g : A revi ew of the T

aylorr ecor d di s cl os es w i thoutques t i on thatthe pl eadi ng s ounds i n negl i gence . N o int enti onal t or ti s al l eged, as i s pr es enti n the al l egat i on of

thi s cas e. T he rul e i n Taylori s acc or di ngl y l i m i t ed t o cas es w h e re th e in

ju re d w o rk e r a ttem p ts to su e th e c a rrie r fo r n e g lig e n t re fu sa l to pay. I n the ca s e s ub j ud i ce t he pl eadi ng al l eges the w i thhol di ng of compensa t i on f

orno l egi t i m at e ora r guabl e r eas on and i n an ef f or tt o f or ce a s ett l ementf

ora n i nadequa t e amount , har as s m entr egar di ng an aut o i ns ur ance pol i cy i ssued by t he s ame com pany, r ef us al t o pay medi cal bi l l s , us i ng economi c pr es s ur e t o force a sett l ement , al l s uch ac t s w i th "gr os s nes s and r eckl es s nes s " a s t o evi nce utt eri ndi f f er ence t o the pl ai nt i f

f
. T he compar i s on of the pl eadi ng f

actual l y di s t i ngui s hes the ca s es . T hi s C our t , ther ef or e, c o n c lu d e s th a t T

aylordoes notcontr ol thi s cas e and ha s no appl i cat i on t o cas es a l l e g i n g i n d e p e n d e n t , i n t e n t i o n a l t o rt s b e tw e e n a w o r k e ra n d th e e m p l o y e r 's co m p en sati o n ca rri er. I d. at57. T he C our tr ecogni zed s ever al r eas ons thatact i ons agai ns tthe ca rr i erar e barr ed
w h en b ase d o n n eg li g en ce , b u t no t w h en b ase d o n inten ti o n al co n d u ct: (1) a ca rri er’s i nt ent i onal f

ai l ur e t o pay w or ker s ’ compensa t i on benef i t s does notar i s e outof t he
em p loy ee ’s w o rk-related injury , rathe r, itis i n d ep en d en tl y tort iou s co n d u ct by the c arrier; (2 ) a c arrier is n o t the a lt er eg o of th e em p loy er w h en th e ca rri er’s i n tention al co n d u ct is al l eged; ( 3) the s t atut ory penal t i es w er e i nt ended a s the exc l us i ve r em edy forcl ai m s not15

p rom p tl y p aid b y the c arrier, n o t f o r i n tention al co n d u ct; an d (4) the statu tory p en alt ies are in a d e q u a te to d e te r c a rr ie rs fr o m in te n tio n a l w ro n g d o in g . I d. at58. ¶27. Si nce Hol

land , the par amet er s of a comm on- l aw act i on f or bad- f ai th nonpaymentof
w or ker s ’ compensa t i on benef i t s hav e b ecome w el l
- es t abl i s hed. I n L uckett v. Mis s is s i

ppi W ood, I nc. , 481 So. 2d 288, 290 ( M i s s . 1985) , the C our texpande d Hol land t o perm i ta badf ai th s ui tagai ns tan empl oy er as w el l as a c arr i er . I n McCain v. N or thw es tern N

ati onal I ns ur ance Co. , 4 84 So. 2d 1001, 1002 ( M i s s . 1986) , the C our thel d that“[ t ] he s ame rul es ap p li ca b l e t o h eal th, fi re, casual ty, acci d ent, and otheri nsurance p oli ci es ar e l i kew i se
a p p lica b le to w o rk e rs' c o m p e n sa tio n in su ra n c e c a rr ie rs.” P u n iti v e d a m a g e s a re a v a ilab le
a g a in st a n in su re r th a t d e n ies a c laim w ith o u t a leg iti m a te o r ar g u a b le re a so n , an d a c ts w ith
m a lic e , g ro s s n e g lig e n c e , o r r e c k le s s d is re g a rd fo r th e rig h ts o f o th e rs . Caldw ell v. A l fa Ins. Co. , 6 8 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 5 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 ). ¶28. T he C our t has s t at ed that , t o s ucce ed on a bad- f ai th cl ai m , a w or ker s ’ compensa t i on
c laim a n t m u st s h o w th a t th e e m p lo y e r o r c a rrie r la c k e d “ a le g iti m a te o r a rg u a b le r e a so n to d en y the b en efit s, ” an d “tha t the d en ial co n sti tuted a w il lf u l or m ali ciou s w ron g in d isr eg ard f or[ the cl ai m ant ’ s ] r i ght s . ” Mis s . P ow er& L i ght Co. v. Cook , 832 So
. 2d 47 4, 47 9 (M i ss. 2 0 0 2 ). W h e re th e re w a s a le g iti m a te o r a rg u a b le r e a so n to d e lay o r d e n y b e n e fits, th e re is
n o b a s is fo r a n a w a rd o f p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . I d . H o w e v e r, “th e a b se n c e o f a n ‘a rg u a b le
reas on ’ does no tnece ssaril y e st abli sh t hat the insur er act ed w i th m al i ce or w i th g ross negl i gence or r eckl es s di s r egar d f orthe i ns ur ed' s r i ght s . ” Ca ldw e ll , 686 So
. 2d at109 8 (M i ss. 19 96 ) ( quot i ng B lue Cr os s & B lue Shi eld of Mis s . v. Maas , 51 6 S o. 2d 49 5, 49 7 (M i ss.16

1987) )
. T hi s i s beca us e “w e have r epea t edl y hel d t hat‘puni t i ve dam ages ar e notm andat ed b y th e a b se n c e o f a n a rg u a b le re a so n . . . b e c a u se th e d e n ial o f th e c laim c o u ld b e th e re su lt of hones tm i s t ake orover s i ght

— or di nary ors i m pl e negl i gence . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng S tate Farm Fir e and Cas . v. Sim

ps on , 4 7 7 S o . 2 d 2 4 2 , 2 5 0 (M is s . 1 9 8 5 ))
. ¶29
. T he C ou rthas specif i cal l y setout the st and ard app l i cable t o a b ad-f ai th acti on against
a n in s u ra n c e a d

ju s te r f o r n o n p a y m e n t o f c la im s . B as s v. Cali f or ni a L i f e I ns. Co. , 581 So. 2 d 1 0 8 7 , 1 0 9 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 ). A n a d ju ste r’s re latio n s h ip w ith th e in su re d is p u re ly
c o n tr a c tu a l; it o w e s th e in s u re d n o fi d u c ia ry d u ty . I d. ( quot i ng D unn v. State Far m Fir e & Cas . Co. , 7 1 1 F . S u p p . 1 3 5 9 (N .D . M iss . 1 9 8 7 )). R a th e r, an a d ju ste r’s d u ty is “ to in v e stig a te al l r el evanti nf

or m at i on and .
. . m ake a r eal i s t i c eva l uat i on of a cl ai m . ” I

d . A n adj us t ercan be l i abl e f

orc onductc ons t i tut i ng mal i ce, r eckl es s di s r egar d f orthe r i ght s of

the i ns ur ed, or g ro s s n e g lig e n c e . I

d. “H ow ever , a n a dj us t eri s notl i abl e f ors i m pl e negl i gence i n adj us t i ng a cl ai m . ” I

d. T h u s, lik e a n e m p lo y e r o r c a rrie r, a n a d ju ste r c a n n o t b e h e ld liab le f o r b a d fa ith
w h e n th e c o n d u c t at iss u e a m o u n ts to o rd in a ry o r sim p le n e g lig e n c e . T h is C o u rt a p p lied th is
s t andar d i n G al

lagherB as s ett

v. Jef f coat , 8 8 7 S o . 2 d 7 7 7 , 7 8 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ), to fin d th a t a
c laim s a d ju ste r’s d e lay in p a y in g u n in su re d m o to rist b e n e fits d u e to h e r u n fa m ili a rity w ith M i s s i s s i ppi i ns ur ance l aw w as s i m pl e negl i gence as a mat t erof l aw , notbad f

ai th. 2. The suff

i ci ency of

the ev i dence s uppor t i ng the ve r di ct i n f avorof Mal one fo rb a d-f

a ith d e la y o f p a y m e n t. ¶30. M al one s oughtt o pr ove t hatG al l agherB as s ett ’ s bad- f ai th fa i l ur e t o i nves t i gat e and p ay h i s l egit i m at e w orkers ’ com pen sat i on cl ai m caused him t o d el ay h aving sk in-g raft17

su rg e ry , w h ich p ro x im a tely c a u se d th e a m p u tatio n o f h is le g . H is e x p e rt, D r. K e ith M el ancon, t es t i f

i ed t o a reas on abl e degr ee of m edi cal cert ai nty thatthe del ay ca us ed an i ncr eas e i n i nf

ect i on thatnece s s i t at ed aggr es s i ve s ur gery, and ca us ed orcontr i but ed t o t he eventual l eg amput at i on. W hi l e ther e w as v ol um i nous evi dence s urr oundi ng G al l agher B as s ett ’ s handl i ng of

M al one’ s c l ai m , the onl y r el evantevi dence pert ai ns t o w hatoccurr ed i n Au g u s t2 0 0 0 , b e c a u s e i twa s Ga l l a g h e rBa s s e t t ’ s c o n d u c td u r i n g p r e c i s e l y th a tt i me f r a me thatM al one cl ai m ed t o have de l ayed hi s s ki n- gr af ts ur gery. T he appr opr i at e anal ys i s f ocus es
o n G a llag h e r B a ss e tt’s c o n d u c t in lig h t o f w h a t G a llag h e r B a ss e tt k n e w o r re a so n a b ly sh o u ld have know n atthatt i m e. ¶31. T he evidence of G al l agh er B asset t ’s rol e in t he delayed paymentof w or kers’ compensa t i on benef

i t s cent er ed upon the conduc tof a cl ai m s adj us t er , D ebor ah R obi chaux. R obi chaux’ s onl y s our ce f ornot i ce of

a w or ker s ’ com pens at i on i nj ury w as N abor s . T he evi dence w as thatR obi chaux had r ece i ved not i f i cat i on fr om N abor s thatM al one had a w or kre late d in

ju ry a n d a p re -e x istin g c o n d iti o n . T h e n , s h e h a d in iti a ted a c o n v e rsa tio n w ith M al one’ s s upervi s or , B obby W al l ace , w ho had conf i r m ed t hat M al one had c uthi s l eg at
w or k, thathe h ad a p re- exi s t i ng condi t i on thataf f ect ed the ar ea of

the cut , thathe nee ded
s ki n- gr af ts ur gery, and thatthe nee d f orthe s ki n gr af

tw as due ei thert o the cutort o the pr ee x is tin g c o n d itio n . ¶32. A f

t erherconver s at i on w i th W al l ace , Robi chaux di d nothi ng. She t es t i f i ed thati t w as G a llag h e r B a ss e tt’s p ra c tice n o t to in v e stig a te a N a b o rs w o rk e rs’ c o m p e n sa tio n c laim u n til N abor s had tr ans m i t t ed a B-3 f or m , and s he expe ct ed thata B
- 3 f or m w oul d be s ubm i t t ed.18

N a b o rs’ s c laim s c o o rd in a to r, A lice L a n k fo rd , an d N a b o rs ’s c o u n se l, L a u ra D o e rre , b o th ag ree d that a B -3 fo rm w as re q u ir ed for G all ag h er B asse ttt o set u p a c lai m fi le. L an k ford test if ied th at i f a c lai m is r ep o rt ed b y p h o n e, th e c lai m fi le sh o u ld b e set u p after th e B -3 fo rm is o b tain e d b y th e c laim s a d ju ste r. N a b o rs’ s p o licy w a s to c o m p lete a B -3 fo rm a n d tra n sm it it t o G a llag h e r B a ss e tt a n y tim e a first-a id -o n ly in ju ry n e c e ss itate d su rg e ry o r lo st tim e ; y e t, i tdi d notdo s o i n thi s cas e. N everthel es s , R obi chaux a dm i t t ed that , w hen s he di d notr ece i ve
a B -3 fr o m N a b o rs , s h e s h o u ld h a v e re q u e s te d o n e . ¶33. I ti s vi t al t o eval uat e R obi chaux’ s conducti n l i ghtof the appl i cabl e l aw governi ng the
co m p en sab il ity o f w o rke rs’ co m p en sati o n claim s. W o rke rs’ co m p e n sati o n b en efit s are payabl e f

ora w or k- r el at ed i nj ury thataggr avat es , acc el er at es , orl i ght s up a pr e- exi s t i ng condi t i on, butno benef i t s ar e due f

ordi s abi l i ty thati s s ol el y attr i but abl e t o a pr e- exi s t i ng condi t i on, orw hen the w or k- r el at ed i nj ury no l ongercombi nes w i th the pr e-e xi s t i ng
c o n d itio n to p ro d u c e d is a b ility
. R athborne, H air& R idgew ay B ox Co. v. G r een , 23 7 M i ss. 5 8 8 , 5 9 4 , 1 1 5 S o . 2 d 6 7 4 , 6 7 6 (1 9 5 9 ). A fe d e ra l c o u rt h a s re c o g n iz e d th a t in M is s is s ip p i, a pr e- exi s t i ng condi t i on m ay be a compl et e def ens e t o w or ker s ’ compensa t i on benef i t s , and an adjust er pl aced on not i ce of a pr e- exi s t i ng condi t i on has “a va l i d l egal bas i s . . . t o s pend
s om e t i m e i nves t i gat i ng the r el at i ons hi p be tw een the Pl ai nt i f f’ s pr i ori nj ury a nd hi s w or kpl ace i nj ury. ” McClendon v. W al -Mar t Stor es, I nc. , 52 1 F
. S up p. 2d 56 1, 56 6 (S. D
. M i ss. 2 0 0 7 ). T h u s, R o b icha u x ’s co n v ersa ti o n w ith W all ac e o n ly p lace d h er o n n o ti ce o f a pos s i bi l i ty thatM al one had s uf f er ed a compensa bl e i nj ury. Fur theri nves t i gat i on w as neede d forR ob i chau x to det erm i ne co m pen sabi l i ty. V i ew i ng the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost19

f avor abl e t o M al one, R obi chaux’ s nextst ep shoul d have been t o com m ence an i nves t i gat i on
o f th e c l a i m. ¶3 4. C ons i de r i ng a l l of the e vi de nc e i n t he l i gh t mos t f a vo r a bl e t o M a l on e , I do no tf i nd thatRobi chaux’ s f

ai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e af

t erhe rc onver s at i on w i th W al l ace r i s es t o the l evel
o f m a lice , re c k les s d isre g a rd fo r M a lo n e ’s rig h ts, o r g ro ss n e g lig e n c e . N o e v id e n c e su g g e sts thatRobi chaux act ed m al i ci ous l y orw i th r eckl es s di s r egar d f orthe cons equenc es t o M al one. N or i s ther e s uf

f i ci entevi dence of

gr os s negl i gence . “‘ G r os s negl i gence ’ i s thatcour s e of
c o n d u c t w h ich , u n d e r th e p a rticu lar c irc u m sta n c e s, d isc lo se s a re c k les s in d iffe re n c e to
cons equenc es w i thoutthe exe r t i on of any s ubs t ant i al ef

f or tt o avoi d them. ” D am e v. E s tes , 2 3 3 M iss . 3 1 5 , 3 1 8 1 0 1 S o . 2 d 6 4 4 , 6 4 5 (1 9 5 8 ). “S im p le n e g lig e n c e ” is th e fa ilu re to
exer ci s e due c ar e, and s i gni f i es conductthatamount s t o heedl es s nes s , i natt ent i on, or in a d v e rt e n c e . T

u rn e r v. City o

f R u le v ille , 735 So. 2d 226, 229 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng B e ta B eta Ch apterof

Beta Theta P iv. May , 6 1 1 S o . 2 d 8 8 9 , 8 9 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 )); G r een v. I ngram , 6 0 8 S
. E
. 2 d 9 1 7 , 9 2 3 (V a. 20 0 5 ). ¶35. I n A ugus t2000, R obi chaux l acke d any know l edge that , w i thoutthe i m m edi at e r ece i pt of benef i t s , M al one w oul d del ay the s ur gery a gai ns tmedi cal advi ce. W hats he knew w as t hat M al one nee ded s ki n- gr af ts ur gery f

ora pos s i bl e w ork- r e l a t e d i nj ury, a nds he e xpe ct ed f ur ther
co n tact fr o m N ab o rs. A lth o u g h R o b icha u x sh o u ld h av e fo ll o w ed u p w ith N ab o rs, h er fail u re t o do so amount s t o m er e i nadvert ence w hen cons i der ed i n l i ghtof the f act s that : ( 1) N a b o rs’ s a d m itt e d p ra c tice w a s to se n d a B -3 fo rm to p ro m p t G a llag h e r B a ss e tt t o in v e stig a te a cl ai m ; (2) R obi chaux had no not i ce thata cl ai m def i ni t el y w as goi ng t o be made; and ( 3)I not e thatthe tr i al courtappea r ed t o r ecogni ze the pauci ty of e vi dence s uppor t i ng 7 a hei ght ened t or tw hen the courtr ef us ed t o s ubm i tthe i s s ue of puni t i ve damages t o the j ur y. 20 R obi chaux c om m ence d an i nves t i gat i on once s he r ece i ved a B-3 f or m i n N ovember2001. A t w o rst, itap p e a rs th a t, in A u g u st 2 0 0 0 , R o b ich a u x faile d to fo llo w u p o n a p o ss ib le c laim du e t o h er ow n thoug htl essness . H er om i ssi on co nst i tuted m ere i nad vert ence, heedles sness,
o r in a tten tio n , w h ich co n stitu ted sim p le n e g lig e n c e . In m y o p in io n , v iew in g th e e v id e n c e in t he l i ghtm os tf

avor abl e t o the ver di ct , M al one pr oved thatG al l agherB as s ett ’ s conduct amount ed t o nothi ng m or e than s i m pl e negl i gence . T her ef or e, notonl y w as G al l agher 7 B assett ’s con du cti nsuff ici en t t o sup po rta fi nd i ng of bad fai th, bu trecovery aga i nst G al l agh er B assettforsi m ple neg l i gen ce w as barred by the exclusi vity clause of the W orkers ’ C om pens at i on A ct . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 9 (Rev. 2000). T he evi dence w as i ns uf f i ci ent to s u p p o rt th e v e rd ic t a g a in s t G a lla g h e r B a s s e tt in fa v o r o f M a lo n e . ¶36. I poi nt out t hat a del ay o f vi rtuall y an y length in t he p aym ent of w orkers ’ compensa t i on be nef

i t s i nvar i abl y w i l l c aus e damages of s om e ki nd t o the i nj ur ed empl oyee,
s uch as a s l i ghtw or s eni ng of the w or k- r el at ed i nj ury, emot i onal di s tr ess, o r the l i ke. T he W o rke rs’ C o m p e n sati o n A ct ha s estab li sh ed a b alan ce b etw ee n the in terests of em p loy ers and em ployees: the em ployer provi des com pen sat i on forw ork-related injuries w ith o u t r eg ard to fa u lt, a n d th e A c t is th e e m p lo y e e ’s e x c lu s iv e re m e d y . See 9 J o h n R . B ra d le y , J r., E n c y c lo p e d ia o f M iss iss ip p i L a w (J e ffre y J a c k so n & M a ry M ill e r e d s.) § 7 6 :1 (2 0 0 2 ). T h is bal ance i s thr eat ened i f m i norm i s con du ctb y t he empl oyer , carr i er , oradj us t erthatcaus es21

a d e lay in p a y m e n t is su ffic ien t to p e rm it a n e m p lo y e e to re c o v e r d a m a g e s a t law . O n th is poi nt , a C al i f

orni a appe l l at e courtapt l y has s t at ed: [ M ] i nordel ays i n gett i ng m edi cal s ervi ce, s uch as f ora f ew days oreven a f

ew hour s , caus ed by a c arr i er , coul d become the bas es of i nd epende nts ui t s , and thes e coul d be many an d m ani f ol d i ndeed. T he uni f

or m and exc l us i ve appl i cat i on of

the l aw w oul d become honeycombed w i th i ndepende ntand conf l i ct i ng rul i ngs of

the court s . T he obj ect i ve of the Legi s l atur e and the w hol e patt ern of w or km en' s com pens at i on coul d t her eby be part i al l y nul l i f i ed. T aylor , 420 S o. 2d at566 ( quot i ng N oe v. T r avel ers I ns. Co. , 3 4 2 P . 2 d 9 7 6 , 9 7 9 (C a l. D ist. C t. A p p . 1 9 5 9 ))
. ¶37. I w oul d r ever s e and r ender the ver di ct agai ns t G al l agher B as s ett i n f avor of M al one. 3. The s uf

f i ci ency of

the ev i dence s uppor t i ng the ve r di ct i n f avorof N abors f or b r e a c h o f c o n tr a c t. ¶38. I turn t o the ver di cti n favor of N abo rs ag ai nstG al l agh er B ass ettf orbr eac h of
c o n tra c t. G a llag h e r B a ss e tt arg u e s th a t i ts c o n d u c t w a s n o t im p u tab le to N a b o rs a n d c o u ld
no thave r ender ed N abor s l i abl e t o M al one. A ttr i al , N abor s ’ s theory of r ecove ry against G al l agherB as s ettw as that , butf orG al l agherB as s ett ’ s bad f ai th, N abo rs w oul d nothave b ee n li ab le t o M alon e, an d w o u ld n o t ha v e in c u rred sett lem en t and d efe n se c o sts. N ab o rs cont ended thatG al l agherB as s ett ’ s ba d- f a i th d e l a y br eac hed the contr actw i th C N A r equi r i ng G al l agh er B assettt o p rovi de fai r and ex ped i t i ou s h an dli ng of N abo rs ’s w orkers ’ compensa t i on c l ai m s , a nd the br eac h pr oxi m at el y c aus ed N abor s t o i ncurl i abi l i ty t o M al one. N abor s ar gued thati t s pot ent i al l i abi l i ty t o M al one, bas ed on G al l agherB as s ett ’ s bad f ai th, pr om pt ed i t s M ary C art ers ett l ementw i th M al one. N abor s ’ s j ury i ns truct i on D
- 33 perm i t t ed the j ury t o f

i nd thatN abor s had pr oven by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatG al l agher22

B assett ’s breach o f cont ractp rox im atel y cau sed or con tri bu t ed to N abo rs ’s dam ages, i ncl udi ng: (1) the co st s, ben efi t s, and p enalt i es associ at ed w i th G ary M al on e’s w orkers ’ compensa t i on cl ai m and ( 2) the s ett l ementand cos tof def ens e, i ncl udi ng att orney’ s f

ees , i ncurr ed i n def

ens e of both G ary M al one’ s ba d f ai th act i on and Ga ry M a l o n e ’ s wo r k e r s ’ c o mp e n s a t i o n c l a i m a g a i n s tNa b o r s Dr i l l i n g US A, L
. P. and thatN abor s D r i l l i ng U S A , L
. P. w oul d nothave i ncurr ed butf or G a lla g h e r B a s s e tt S e rv ic e s , In c .’s b re a c h o f c o n tr a c t, if a n y . ¶ 3 9
. In m y o p in io n , G a llag h e r B a ss e tt c o rre c tly a rg u e s th a t its a c ts w e re n o t im p u tab le to N abor s . I n L u c k e tt , th is C o u rt h e ld th a t a n e m p lo y e r, a s w e ll a s a c a rrie r, m a y b e h e ld liab le fo r b a d -f a ith n o n p a y m e n t o f w o rk e rs ’ c o m p e n s a tio n b e n e fi ts . L u c k e tt , 481 So. 2d at290. H ow ever , w hen a c arr i eract s i n bad f ai th, the ca rr i er “ceases t o be the ‘ al t erego’ of t he
e m p lo y e r,” b u t is in v o lv e d in a n in d e p e n d e n t r e la tio n s h ip w ith th e e m p lo y e e . Hol land , 469 S o . 2 d a t 5 8 ; P ilate v. Am . Fed. I ns. Co. , 865 So. 2d 387, 395 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2004)
. T he i m por tof

thi s rul e i s t hat an empl oyeri s notl i abl e f orthe bad- f

ai th act s of

an i ns ur ance
carr i er , or , as i n thi s cas e, the bad- f ai th act s of

an i ns ur ance adj us t erw i th w hom the ca r r i er h a s c o n tra c ted to d e ter m in e th e c o m p e n s a b ili ty o f c laim s. In th e c o n tex t o f a fra u d u len tj oi ndercl ai m , the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ou rtforthe Southern D i s tr i ctof M i s s i s s i ppi det erm i ned thatan empl oyerw ho w as f r ee f r om a ny w r ongdoi ng c oul d notbe he l d l i abl e f or th e c a rr ie r’ s b a d -f

a ith n o n p a y m e n t o f a w o rk e rs ’ c o m p e n s a tio n c la im
. T on ey v. L ow ery W oodyar ds , 278 F. Supp. 2d 786, 793 ( S. D
. M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng Hol land , 4 6 9 S o . 2 d at 58 ). B eca us e the empl oyerand carr i era r e nota l t ere gos w hen act i ng i n bad f ai th, the empl oyer23

and ca rr i ere ach ar e l i abl e f orthei row n ba d- f

ai th a ct s , a nd the bad- f

ai th a ct s of

one ar e not im p u ta b le to th e o th e r. ¶40. I have c oncl uded thatt he evi dence w as i ns uf f i ci entt o s uppor ta f

i ndi ng that G al l agher B a ss e tt ac ted in b a d fa ith
. B u t ev e n if G a llag h e r B a ss e tt w a s g u ilty o f b a d fa ith , it s b a d fa ith
w a s n o t im p u ta b le to N a b o rs . Hol land , 4 6 9 S o . 2 d a t 5 8 ; P ila te , 8 6 5 S o . 2 d a t 3 9 5 ; T oney , 2 7 8 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 7 9 3 . N a b o rs s e ttl e d th e c a se b e c a u se it p e rc e iv e d its p o ten tial lia b ili ty to M al one; ho w ever, any l i abi l i ty w hi ch N abor s had t o M al one coul d have a r i s en onl y f r om N ab o rs’s ow n fail u re to c o m p ly w ith the W o rke rs’ C o m p en sati o n A ct co n ce rnin g M alon e’s cl ai m . E vi dent l y, N abor s s ett l ed w i t h M al one t o avoi d thi s pot ent i al l i abi l i ty, and then
s oughtt o r ecove rt he se t t l ementam ountand def ens e expens es f

r om G al l agherB as s ettbas ed on an “a l t er - ego” theory. T hi s N abor s coul d notdo, beca us e i tw as notl i abl e as a m at t erof l aw forany bad- f

ai th conductcom m i t t ed by G al l agherB as s ett . I w oul d r ever s e and r ender th e v e rd ic t a g a in s t G a lla g h e r B a s s e tt in fa v o r o f N a b o rs .