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 8 - CA- 0 0 4 5 6 - S CT GENE J ON ES, ASH

LEY C RAF T, RALPH

SCOTT, HAR DY G OR DON, J

AMESW

I L L I AMSAN

D R E G G I E WI L L I A MS
v. FL UOR DA NI

EL S ER VICESCORP ORAT ION
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 04/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. RO BE RT G. E VANS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: J ASP ER C OUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANTS : THOM AS QUI TM AN BRAM E, J R. AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : GAR Y E
. F RI E DM AN S T E VE J
. AL L E N S AUNDR A B RO W N S T RO NG NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - T OR T S
- OT HE R T HAN P E RS ONAL I NJ UR Y & P RO P E RT Y DAMAGE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 02/ 18/ 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. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s c as e comes bef or e thi s Courtf

orthe s econd t i m e on app eal fr om the J as per C o u n ty C ir cu itC o u rt ’s gra n t of F luo r D an iel S erv ices C o rpo rati o n ' s M o ti o n for S u m m ary J udgm ent . T he tr i al c our tdi s m i s s ed the pl ai nt i f f s ' c l ai m s of

i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s w i th pr ej udi ce a s barr ed by the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . W e af

f i r m the tr i al
cou rton al l i ssues.

### 2 FACTS ¶2. T he s i x pl ai nt i f

f s i n thi s cas e ar e al l A f

r i can- A m er i can m al es and f or m erempl oyees of Fl uo rD a ni e l Se r vi c e s Corpo r a t i on . W hi l e e mpl oy e d wi th Fl uo rD a ni e l , the y wor ke d underthe di r ects upervi s i on of R ud y A m ar o, a M exi can man. T he pl ai nt i f f s ’ compl ai nt al l eges A m ar o comm i t t ed a num berof r aci al l y- m ot i vat ed of f ens es w hi l e ac t i ng i n the s cope,
cour s e, and author i ty of hi s empl oym ent . T he pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a j oi ntact i on agai ns tFl uor D ani el , cl ai m i ng Fl uorD ani el i s vi car i ous l y l i abl e for A m ar o’ s act i ons . T he compl ai nt al l eges thes e ac t i ons cons t i tut e “a w r ongf ul and m al i ci ous di s char ge, a negl i genti nf l i ct i on
o f e m o tio n a l d istre ss , a w illf u l a n d m a licio u s b re a c h o f th e d u ty o f g o o d fa ith a n d fa ir deal i ngs , a r et al i at ory di s char ge, and a gr i evous and mal i ci ous t or tunderothervar i ous theo ri es of the l aw . ” A m aro al so w as nam ed a d efendan t , bu tw as neve r s erved w i th p rocess and i s bel i eved t o have r eturned t o M exi co. ¶3. T hi s cas e ca m e bef or e thi s C ou rto n app eal pr evi ous l y f r om the tr i al court ’ s pr i or g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Jones v. Fluor D ani el Ser vices Cor

p. , 9 59 S o. 2 d 10 44 (M i ss. 2 0 0 7 ) (“ Jo n es I

”). I n Jo n es I, this C o u rtrev erse d the tri al co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm entas t o t he cl ai m o f “t ort i ous i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s ” and r emanded the
m att ert o the tr i al courtf orfurtherpr ocee di ngs on thati s s ue al one. W e s t at ed, “[ i ] n vi ew i ng the r ecor d i n i t s ent i r ety i n t he l i ghtm os tfa vor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f s , w e f i nd ther e i s enough evi dence t o m ai nt ai n a ca us e of act i on f ori nt ent i onal i nf

l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s . ” I

d. at 10 50
. T his C ou rtaff

i rm ed the tri al co urt ’s g ranto f sum m ary j ud gm ent as t o all otheri ssues. ¶4. O n r emand, Fl uorD ani el a gai n moved f ors um m ary j udgm ent– thi s t i m e al l egi ng the statute of

l i m i t at i on s had run on the p l ai nti ff s’ i ntent i on al -i nfl i ct i on -of -em oti on al -di stres s

### 3

cl ai m . A l l t he pl ai nt i f

f s w er e l ai d of

f betw een O ct ober27, 2001, and February 22, 2002. T hi s act i on w as notcomm enced u nti l A pr i l 4, 2003. T he tr i al courtf ound that , al though i nt ent i onal i nf

l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s i s notl i s t ed s peci f i cal l y as one of

the i nt ent i onal to rt s b a rr e d b y a o n e -y e a r s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s in M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c ti o n 1 5 -1 -3 5 , th is C our tes t abl i s hed t hatthe one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i es t o cl ai m s f ori nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s i n CitiFinanci al Mor t gage Co. , I

nc. v. W as hington , 967 So. 2d 16, 19 ( M i s s . 2007)
. T he tr i al courtf ur therf ound thatthe def

endantd i d no tw ai ve t he
s t atut e- of

- l i m i t at i ons def

ens e, gr ant ed Fl uorD ani el ’ s m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent , and di s m i s s ed the pl ai nt i f

f s ’ cl ai m as t i m e- barr ed. A ggr i eved by the tr i al court ’ s gr antof
su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, th e p lain tiffs a g a in a p p e a l to th is C o u rt. A N A L Y S IS ¶ 5
. T h e p lain tiffs ra ise th e fo llo w in g iss u e s o n a p p e a l: I . W het her t he t ri al court err ed by grant i ng sum m ary j udgm ent as to t h e p l ainti f

f s ’ i nt ent i onal - i nf

l i ct i on- of

- em ot i ona l -di st ress cl aim s. I I . W het her t he t ri al court err ed i n app l yi ng a one- year s t at ut e of l i mi t a t i o n s t o a n i n t e n t i o n a l - i n f l i c t i o n - o f

- e mo t i o n a l - d i s t r e s s c l a i m. I I I . W he t he r t he t r i alc our t abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by al l owi ng t he def endant t o f

i l e i t s A nswer t o t he A m ended C om pl ai nt f our years l at e. I V . W he t he r t he t r i alc our t abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by al l owi ng t he def endant t o propoun d i ni t i al di s cover y m ore t han f our years l at e. ¶ 6
. T h is C o u rt rev iew s a n o rd e r g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . Ma n ta c h ie N atural G as D is t

. v. Mis s . V

al ley G as Co. , 594 So. 2d 1 170, 1172 ( M i s s . 1992) ( ci t i ng Cla rkv. Mo o r e Me m ’l U n ite d Me th o dis t Ch u r c h , 5 3 8 S o . 2 d 7 6 0 , 7 6 2 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 )).

### 4

Fur therm or e, thi s C our tr evi ew s ques t i ons of l aw , i ncl udi ng s t atut e- of
- l i m i t at i ons i s s ues , de
n o v o . Ste

phe ns v. Equitab le Li

f e As s ur anc e Soc ’

y of U . S. , 850 So. 2d 78, 81 ( M i s s . 2003) ( quot i ng A B C

M fg. Co rp . v. D o

y le , 7 4 9 S o . 2 d 4 3 , 4 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )). W h ere su m m ary ju d g m e n t is a t issu e , “[t]he ev id e n c e m u st b e v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e p a rty agai ns tw hom the mot i on has been made. ” I d. I n thos e i ns t ance s , “[ a] l l thati s r equi r ed of
a non- m ovantt o s ur vi ve a mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm enti s t o es t abl i s h a genui ne i s s ue of
m at er i al f

act . ” Sim m ons v. T

hom ps on Mach. of

Mis s . , I nc. , 63 1 S o. 2d 79 8, 80 1 (M i ss. 1 9 9 4 ). I. ¶7. T he plai nt i f

f s cont end that the court err ed i n al l ow i ng Fl uor D ani el t o m ai nt ai n t he def ens e of s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons as s ert ed i n the or i gi nal ans w er . T he pl ai nt i f f s al l ege that F lu o r D a n iel h a s w a iv e d its rig h t to re ly o n th e s ta tu te o f lim itatio n s a s a d e fe n se in th is
m at t er, an d rel y on the factthatF l uo r D aniel pleaded the st atute of l i m i t at i on s as a defense i n nons peci f

i c ter m s. T he exa ctl anguage on w hi ch the pl ai nt i f f s f ocus comes f

r om Fl uor Da n i e l ’ s o r i g i n a l a n s we r , i n wh i c h i ts t a t e d t h a tt h e c l a i m “m ay be barr ed by s t atut es of li m it ati o n s. ” (E m p h asis ad d ed
. ) T h e p lai n ti ffs esse n ti all y asse rtthat the u se o f th e w o rd “m ay” rather than “i s” i s a f ai l ure t o plead af

fi rm at i vely the defense of st atute of l i m i t at i on s. T h is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e ri t. ¶8. T he pl ai nt i f

f s al l ege t hat “more cr i t i cal t o t he deter m i nat i on of thi s poi nt i s the f act th a t th e D e fe n d a n t d id a b so lu tely n o th in g to a d v a n c e o r a ss e rt a n y a rg u m e n t th a t th e sta tu te
o f lim itatio n s h a d ru n . . . w h ile p a rticip a tin g in th is liti g a tio n fo r y e a rs a n d y e a rs.” T h is C our thas s ai d, “A def endant ’ s f

ai l ur e t o t i m el y and r eas onabl y rai s e and pur s ue the

### 5

e n forc em en t o f any affi rm ati v e d efe n se o r othe r affi rm ati v e m att er or ri g h t w h ich w o u ld
s er ve t o t erm i nat e ors t ay the l i t i gat i on, coupl ed w i th act i ve part i ci pat i on i n the l i t i gat i on pr oces s , w i l l or di nar i l y s erve as a w ai ver . ” Mis s . Credit Center , I nc. v. Hor ton , 926 So. 2d 1 6 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶9. T he rel evan tis sue i n Hor ton w a s w h e th e r o r n o t th e d e fe n d a n t w a iv e d h is rig h t to
c o m p e l a rb itratio n b y w a iti n g m o re th a n e ig h t m o n th s to p u rsu e h is rig h t to a rb itrate , w h ile act i vel y part i ci pat i ng in t he l i t i gat i on. T he def endantas s ert ed thatr i ghti n hi s ans w er , but d id n o t file a m o tio n to c o m p e l arb itratio n o r re q u e st a h e a rin g o n th e m o tio n w ith in w h a t th is C our tcons i der ed a r eas onabl e t i m e. Fur therm or e, the def endanti n Hor ton su b sta n tially engage d i n the l i t i gat i on “by cons ent i ng t o a sche dul i ng or der , engagi ng i n w r i t t en di s covery, and conduc t i ng [ a] depos i t i on. ” I d. at180. H e pr ovi ded no expl anat i on f orthe del ay. ¶10. T hi s C our thel d, “ [ a] l though pa r t i ci pat i on i n the l i t i gat i on i s a n i m por t antf act ort o be
cons i der ed, m or e i s r equi r ed t o c ons t i tut e a w ai ver . ” I d. W e f ound thatpart i ci pat i on i n t he l i t i gat i on, c oupl ed w i th s ubs t ant i al a nd unr eas onabl e del ay i n pur s ui ng the r i ghtt o compel
a rb itr a tio n , c o n s titu te d a w a iv e r o f th a t rig h t. I d . W e fu rth e r p o in ted o u t th a t “p re ju d ice to the party r es i s t i ng arbitrat i on i s a f act ort o be cons i der ed. ” I d. atn. 7 ( ci t i ng R uss el l v. P er f or m ance Toyota, I

nc. , 8 2 6 S o . 2 d 7 1 9 , 7 2 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 )). ¶11. Fi nal l y, the Hor ton C our t s ai d, “[ o] ur hol di ng t oday i s not l i m i t ed t o as s ert i on of t he
r i ghtt o compel arbi tr at i on. ” I d. at 18 0
. W e fo u n d th at un rea so n ab le fail u re to ti m ely a ssert any r i ghtw hi ch coul d t erm i nat e the l i t i gat i on coul d l ead t o a w ai verof s uch r i ghti f

coupl ed
w i th part i ci pat i on i n t he l i t i gat i on pr oces s . I n an att empt t o def i ne w hatcons t i tutes an
unr eas onabl e del ay, thi s C our ts t at ed:

### Leev . Golden Triangl

e Pl anning and Dev. Dis t. , I

nc. , 797 So. 2d 845 (Mi ss . 2001) ; 1 

### Brown v . I ntercit y Fed. Bank f

or Sav . , 738 So. 2d 262 (Mi ss . Ct . App. 1999). 6 W e d e c lin e to d a y to s e t a m in im u m n u m b e r o f d a y s w h ich w ill c o n stitu te unr eas onabl e del ay i n every cas e, butra therw e def ers uch f i ndi ngs f orthe tr i al courton a ca s e by ca s e bas i s . W e do hol d how everthat– abs ente xtr eme and unus ual ci r cumst ance s – an ei ghtm onth unj us t i f

i ed del ay i n the as s ert i on and pu rs uito f any af

f i r m at i ve de

f ens e orotherr ightw hi ch, i f t i m el y pur s ued, coul d s erve t o t erm i nat e the l i t i gat i on, c oupl ed w i th a ct i ve part i ci pat i on i n the litig a tio n p ro c e s s , c o n s t i t u t e s wa i v e ra s a ma t t e ro f la w. I d . (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶1 2. I n t he pr es entm at t er , t her e i s uncer t ai nt y as t o w he n the pl a i nt i f f s ’ c l a i m f

or i nt ent i on al inf

l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s w as r ai s ed. T he pl ai nt i f f s ’ or i gi nal compl ai nt
s ta te s th a t th e d e fe n d a n t’ s a c tio n s c o n s titu te “ a n e g lig e n t in fl ic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s .” T he compl ai ntdoes notm ent i on i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s . T he def endant
s t at ed i n i t s ans w erthat“ [ t ] he pl ai nt i f f s ’ cl ai m s , t o the ext entany ar e s t at ed, m ay be ba r r ed by s t atut es of

l i m i t at i ons . ” ¶13. I n a w r i t t en r es pons e t o F l uorD ani el ’ s m ot i on forsumm ary j udgm enti n Jo n es I, t he pl ai nt i f f s s t at ed thatthey had de m ons tr at ed “a vi abl e caus e of act i on on a theory of

i nf l i ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s. ” T heirargum ent i s based o n tw o cases w hich dir ect l y ad dress i nt ent i onalinfl ict ion o f em o ti o n al distr ess. A t the h ea ri n g o n the m o ti o n for su m m ary 1 j udgm enti n Jo n es I, the pl ai nt i f f s ’ couns el r ef

err ed t o the cl ai m s as “i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of e mot i on a l d i s tr e s s . ” The tr i a l c ou r t ’ s o r de rg r a nt i ng s umm a ry j ud gment i n J o n es I d e s c ri b e d th e c a u s e o f a c tio n a s “ to rt io u s in fl ic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s .” ¶1 4. T he pl ai nt i f

f s ’ br i ef i n Jo n es I

re fe rs to it s em o ti o n al-distress c lai m as sim p ly “i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s . ” H ow ever , Fl uorD ani el ’ s br i ef i n Jo n es I

r ef er s t o the

### 7

p lai n ti ffs’ cl aim as “ inten ti o n al i n fl ict ion o f em o ti o nal di stres s, ” a n d w as fil ed w ith this C o u rt
o n S e p tem b e r 9 , 2 0 0 6 . T h is C o u rt su b se q u e n tly ru led th a t th e p lain tiffs’ in ten tio n a lin fl ic tio n -o f- e m o tio n a l- d is tr e s s c la im s s h o u ld s u rv iv e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Jo n es I, 959 So. 2 d a t 1 0 4 9
. Jo n es I

w as handed dow n on J une 21, 2007. ¶15. T he l i t i gat i on, of c our s e, w as s t ayed unt i l thi s Courthanded dow n i t s rul i ng thatt he pl ai nt i f f s ’ i nt ent i onal
- i nf

l i ct i on- of
- emot i onal
- di s tr ess cl ai m w as st i l l viabl e on J une 21, 2007. Fl uorD ani el f

i l ed i t s m ot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm enton i t s s t atut e- of
- l i m i t at i ons def

ens e on J anuary 22, 2008 – s om e s even mont hs l at er . W hi l e thi s C our trul ed, i n Hor ton , thatan unj us t i f i ed ei ght
- m onth del ay i n pur s ui ng a def ens e, coupl ed w i th part i ci pat i on i n the l i t i g a t i o n , i s u n r e a s o n a b l e a n d c o n s t i tu t e s wa i v e ro f th a td e f e n s e a s a ma t t e ro f

l a w, we def err ed t o the tr i al courton a ca s e- by- cas e bas i s f i ndi ngs of

f actas t o w hatcons t i tut es an
u n re a s o n a b le d e la y fo r a n y tim e le s s th a n e ig h t m o n th s . ¶1 6. I n t he pr e s e nt mat t e r , the tr i a l c ou r t gr a nt e d s umm a ry j ud gmen t a nd c omm un i c a t ed thi s t hr ough a l ett ert o t he couns el of r ecor d. T w o days l at er , t he pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a mot i on f

or f i ndi ngs of f

actand concl us i ons of l aw “on t he i s s ue of the w ai verof

af f i r m at i ve def

ens e of
s t atue of l i m i t at i ons . ” I n i t s opi ni on a nd or der , the tr i al courtrul ed that“the def endanthas notw ai ved [ the s t atut e- of
- l i m i t at i ons ] def

ens e, ” butdi d notexpound fur theron thi s i s s ue. ¶ 1 7
. It ca n n o t be sa id tha t th e tri a l co u rt ab u se d the d isc re tio n g iv e n to it b y this C o u rt in Hor ton by rul i ng the def endanthad notw ai ved the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons def

ens e – p arti cu larl y in li g h t of p lai n ti ffs’ fail u re to stat e the irclaim clea rl y . T h ere fore , the tri al co u rt i s af f i r m ed as t o t hi s i s s ue. II.

### 8

¶1 8. T he pl ai nt i f

f s a s s er tthatthe t r i al c our te r r ed i n a ppl yi ng a one- year s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons t o an i nt ent i onal
- i nf l i ct i on- of

- emot i onal
- di s tr es s cl ai m , and thata thr ee- year sta tu te o f lim itatio n s a p p lies to a cla im fo r in ten tio n a l i n flictio n o f e m o tio n a l d istre ss . T h is C o u rt h a s b e e n in c o n sis ten t in its ru lin g s o n w h e th e r a n in ten tio n a l-in flictio n -o f-e m o tio n a ldi s tr es s cl ai m i s s ubj ectt o a one- yearst atut e of l i m i t at i ons underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 35, w hi ch s peci f

i cal l y enumer at es cert ai n t or t s w hi ch ca rry a one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i on s. T he st atute r eads as fol l ow s: 

### All actio ns fo r assault, assau lt andbattery , maimin g , fa lse imp risonment, ma li ci ous arr es t, or

m ena ce , and a llac ti ons f or s landerous words c once rning theper son or

ti tl e, for fa ilureto e mpl oy, and for l ibe ls , s hal l becomme nce d within one( 1) year next

a ft er theca useof s uch a ction a cc rue d, and not a ft er . Mis s. Code Ann. § 15-1- 35 (Re v. 2003)
. ¶19
. T h is C o u rth as said , “ inten ti on al and / or negli gen ti nfl i ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s cl ai m s ar e governed by t he thr ee- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . ” N

or m an v. B ucklew , 684 So. 2d 1246, 1256 ( M i s s . 1996)
. I n N or m an , i nt ent i onal and negl i genti nf l i ct i on of emot i onal d is tr e s s a re lu m p e d to g e th e r, a n d n o a u th o ri ty is c ite d fo r t h is p ro p o s itio n . ¶2 0. O n t he othe rha nd , thi s Cour ta l s o h a s he l d tha ti nt e nt i on a l i nf l i c t i on of emot i onal di s tr es s i s s ubj ectt o the one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 1 5 -1 -3 5
. P ier ce v. Cook , 992 So. 2d 612, 618 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng S laydon v. H an sf ord , 830 So. 2d 686, 689 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2002) )
. A gai n, w e s t at ed “[ t ] he cl ai m f ori nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s i s s ubj ectt o a one- yea rs t a tut e of l i mi t at i ons underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 15-1- 35 ( R ev. 2003)
. ” CitiFinanci al Mor t gage Co. , I

nc. v. W as hington , 967 So. 2d 16, 19 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng Souther n v. Mis s . State H os p. , 853 So.

### 9

2 d 1 2 1 2 , 1 2 1 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 )). T he P ier ce anal ys i s cent er ed ar ound w hetherthe t or tati s s ue
cons t i tut ed a c ont i nui ng t or t , and no bi ndi ng aut ho ri t y w as ci t ed f orthe pr opos i t i on that i nt ent i onal
- i nf

l i ct i on- of

- emot i onal
- di s tr es s cl ai m s ar e s ubj ectt o a one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T o f

ur thercompl i cat e thi ngs , the Sout he r n cas e ci t ed by the W as hington C o u rt does notanal yze the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f

ori nt ent i onal i nf

l i ct i on of e m ot i onal di s tr es s , but
ra th e r th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s u n d e r th e M iss iss ip p i T o rt C laim s A c t. ¶21. W e opene d the door for ambi gui ty i n De n n is v. Tr a v e le r ’s I n s u r a n c e Co
. , 234 So. 2d 624 ( M i s s . 1970) , i n w hi ch t hi s C our thel d thatthe one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f

ound i n M i s s i ssi pp i C od e Sect i on 15- 1- 35 appl i ed t o an ac t i on f or“w i l l f

ul , m al i ci ous , and i rr es pons i bl e . . . thr eatof c r i m i nal pr os ecut i on . . . . t o enf or ce a purpor t ed ci vi l debt
. ” The
ca se in v o lved an insu ran ce co m p an y sen d ing a l ett er threa tenin g lega l acti o n if the p lai n ti ffs d id n o t p a y fo r d a m a g e c a u se d b y th e ir so n ' s v a n d a lism
. T h e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e lette r fe ll
w ith in the p u rview o f th at s tatu te u n d er the ca tego ry o f “m en ac e,” n o ti n g that the term

“ m e n a c e ” m e a n t th re a t. S in c e th e lette r w ritten b y th e d e fe n d a n t w a s th re a ten in g , itfe ll
w ith in th e c a teg o ry o f m e n a c e , a n d th e re fo re th e o n e -y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s fo u n d in Sect i on 15- 1- 35 appl i ed. ¶22. T hi s C our t has “cons i s t ent l y hel d i n m any cas es . . . that w her e a s t atut e enumer at es and s peci f

i es the s ubj ecto f t hings up on w hi ch i ti s t o oper at e, i ti s t o be cons trued as excludi ng fr om i t s eff

ectal l tho se notexpress l y m enti on ed or unde r a general cl ause, tho se
n o t of l i ke ki nd orclas s i

f i cat i on as thos e enumer at ed. ” S. W . D rug C om . v. How ar d B r os P harm acy of

Jacks on, I

nc. , 320 So. 2d 776, 779 ( M i s s . 1975) ( emphasi s a dded)
. I n def i ni ng “of l i ke ki nd orcl as s i f

i cat i on” w i th r egar d t o S ect i on 15-1- 35, thi s C our thas hel d, “the f act

### 10

that w rongful co nd uct i s al l eged t o b e i ntent i on al do es not det erm i ne w hich st atute cont rol s. D e n n is m e a n s n o m o re th a n th a t th e a b s e n c e o f a la b e l is , s im ila rl y , n o t c o n tr o llin g .” N i chol s v. T r i-State B r i ck and T

ile Co. , I nc. , 608 So. 2d 324, 333 ( M i s s . 1992)
. W e f ur ther
s t at ed, “[ w ] her e . . . the conduc tal l eged may be f ai r l y categor iz ed

as one of

the enumer at ed t or t s , the one- years t atut e appl i es . O therw i s e, i tdoes not . ” I d. I n N ich o ls , w e hel d thatthe p lain tiff’s c laim s w e re n o t t im e -b a rre d b y S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 5 b e c a u se its c laim s w e re n o t “ fa irly
em bodi ed

i n any of

the ca us es ther e enumer at ed. ” I d . (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶23. T he N

or m an c a se c re a tes m o st o f th e c o n fu sio n in o u r p re c e d e n t a s to w h ich sta tu te of l i m i t at i ons appl i es . A s s t at ed above , the N orm an C ou rth el d t hat , “i nt ent i onal and/ or negl i genti nf

l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s cl ai m s ar e governed by the thr ee- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons. ” N

or m an , 6 84 So
. 2 d a t1 25 6. Thi s Courta gr e e s wi th the a na l ys i s by t he S o u th e rn D istric t o f M iss iss ip p i, w h ich p o in ted o u t th a t t he N orm an Cour tdi d n otdi s t i ng ui s h b e tw e e n the ne gl i ge nta nd i nt e nt i on al i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s t or t s and i ns t ead l um ped both t ogetheri nt o the cat egory of

cl ai m s f

or‘ emot i onal di s tr es s ’ damages
. . . [ and] di d not acknow l edge, m uch l es s addr es s and r ej ectal l of t hi s subs t ant i al pre cede nton t he i ssue of

the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons appl i cabl e t o cl ai m s f ori nt ent i onal in fl ic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . Her vey v. Met

L i f e G en. I ns. Corp. Sys tem Agency of Mis s . , I nc. , 154 F. S upp. 2d 909, 915 ( S. D
. M i s s . 2001) ( quot i ng Her vey v. Metli fe G en . Ins. Corp . , 1 4 7 F
. S u p p . 2 d 5 1 7 ( S
. D. M is s . 2 0 0 1 ))
. ¶24. W e, l i ke the Her vey C our t , ar e convi nced that thi s C our t w oul d not have appr oache d the s tatu te of li m it ati o n s for inten ti o n al i n fl ict ion o f em o ti o n a l distress “ in so ca v ali er a
m anner , w i th nothi ng more than an obl i que r ef er ence , unacc om pani ed by expl anat i on. ” Id
.

### 11

at917. T her ef

or e, w e conc l ude thatthe r ef er ence i n N

or m an “w as uni nt ent i onal , and that
c on s i s t e ntw i th a l l othe ra utho r i t i e s w hi c h p r e da t e d a nd po s t da t e d N or m an , the one- year lim ita tio n s p e ri o d a p p lie s .” Id
. ¶25. W e al s o f

i nd the Fi f

th C i r cui t ’ s anal ys i s i n K ing v. O tas co, I

nc. , 8 6 1 F . 2 d 4 3 8 (5 th C i r . 1988) , t o be pe r s uas i ve. T her e, the courts ai d, “ al though note xpl i ci t l y l i s t ed i n the oneye a rs t a tut e , ” the pl a i nt i f f ' s c l a i ms f

ori nt e nt i on a l i nf

l i c t i on of

e mot i on a l di s tr e s s a nd outr ageous conductw er e “undoubt edl y i nt ent i onal t or t s , and s o clos el y anal ogous t o the
c o m m o n la w a c tio n s fo r a ss a u lt, lib e l, a n d s la n d e ro u s w o rd

s th a t th e y to o m u st fa ll w ith in the s tat ut e'

s bar
. ” I d. at 44 2 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶26
. Int enti on al i nfl i ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s i s a t ort against the person, as are the v ast
m aj ori ty o f tho se specif i cal l y enu m erat ed i n S ect i on 15 -1- 35 of the M i ssi ssi pp i C od e. M i ss. C od e A nn . § 15-1-35 ( R ev. 200 3). T heref ore, u n d er N

ic h o ls, a caus e of

act i on f

or i nt ent i on al i nf

l i ct i on of

emot i onal di s tr es s i s “f ai r l y embodi ed” i n the ca us es of act i on i ncl uded i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15- 1- 35. B as ed on the pr i oranal ys i s , w e hol d thatt he t ortof i ntent i on al i nfl i ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s i s of l i ke ki nd orclas s i

f i cat i on a s th e to rts
enumer at ed i n Sect i on 15- 1- 35, as r equi r ed by S o u th w e s t D r u gCo m p a ny, and i tt oo carr i es
a one- year st atut e of

l i m i t at i ons . T o the ext entthe N or m an c a se h o ld s o th e rw ise , itis
e x p re s s ly o v e rr u le d
. ¶27. I n l i ghtof

thi s hol di ng, the pl ai nt i f f s ’ cl ai m s ar e b arr ed by the on e- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f

ound i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 15-1- 35. T her ef or e, t r i al cour ti s af

f i r m ed as t o thi s i s s ue.

### 12 III . ¶ 2 8
. Jo n es I w as handed dow n on J une 21, 2007, and thi s mat t erw as r emanded t o the tr i al
co u rt, after w h ich F luo r D an iel fi led a n am en d ed an sw er in Ja n u ary 2 0 0 8
. T h e p lai n ti ffs compl ai n thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n al l ow i ng the def endantt o fi l e i t s amended ans w er
a p p ro x im a te ly fo u r y e a rs la te . ¶29. T hi s C our thas f

ound, i n partthr ough the comm entt o the rul e, thatamended pl eadi ngs h a v e b e e n lib e ra lly p e rm itte d th ro u g h o u t M is s is s ip p i' s le g a l h is to ry . See M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 1 5 (a ) c m t.; Moel

lerv. A m . G uar. and L iab. I ns. Co. , 8 1 2 S o . 2 d 9 5 3 , 9 6 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ); B everl y v. P ow ers , 6 6 6 S o . 2 d 8 0 6 , 8 0 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ); W e b b v. B ra sw e ll , 930 So. 2d 387 ( M i s s . 2006)
. The gr antorde ni al of a mot i on f

orl eave t o a m end i s w i thi n the sound d is c re tio n o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt . M B F C or p. v. Century B us. Com m c’ns, I nc. , 663 So. 2d 595, 6 0 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ); Fran k v. D ore , 6 3 5 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 9 , 1 3 7 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). W h il e the tr ial co u rt has di s cr et i on t o al l ow an amendm entand shou l d do s o f r eel y underthe pr oper ci r cumst ance s , an amendm ents houl d notbe gra nt ed w hen i tw oul d pre j udi ce the otherpar ty. Hes terv. B andy , 6 2 7 S o . 2 d 8 3 3 , 8 3 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 3 ). T h u s , i n th e m a t t e rb e f o r e u s t o d a y , we
m ay r ever s e the tr i al c our t ’ s gr antof Fl uorD ani el ' s m ot i on t o amend i t s ans w eronl y upon f i ndi ng abus e of

di s cr et i on by the tr i al court . O therw i s e, the tr i al court ' s gr antof thi s m ot i on t o amend m us tr emai n undi s turbed. ¶ 3 0
. T h e p lain tiffs a re inc o rre c t i n the ir as se rtio n tha t F lu o r D a n iel m u st s h o w e x c u sa b le negl ectunderR ul e 6 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l P r ocedur e. T he corr ectrul e governi ng
a m e n d m e n ts to p lea d in g s is R u le 1 5 , w h ich is title d “ A m e n d e d a n d S u p p le m e n ta l P le a d in g s .”

### 13

T he s i tuat i on bef

or e us is s i m i l art o thatdeal tw i th by thi s C our tpr evi ous l y i n Cit y of Jacks on v. P r es ley , 942 So. 2d 777 ( M i s s . 2006)
. The Courtthen al s o anal yzed a n amended
ans w erthatw as f

i l ed f ouryear s l at e and f

ound thatthe tr i al j udge had e rr ed i n gr ant i ng P resley ’s m o ti o n to stri k e the am en d ed an sw er. ¶31. I n P r es ley , the ci ty had f i l ed i t s or i gi nal ans w er and af f i r m at i ve def

ens es on June 28, 1 9 9 9 . P re sle y , as th e p lain tiff, filed h e r a m e n d e d c o m p lain t o n Ju n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 0 . T h e c ity d id
n o t fi le an am en d ed an sw er un ti l A u g u st 5 , 20 0 4 , m o re th an fou r yea rs l ater. T h is C o u rt
r evi ew ed the or i gi nal and amended compl ai nt s and not ed thatthe or i gi nal compl ai ntand the amended compl ai ntw er e i dent i cal , exce ptf orone s ent ence w hi ch w as added t o the amended compl ai nt . T he s ent ence s ai d, ve rba t i m, “ A dd i t i on a l l y, Pr es l ey has i ncurr ed pr operty damage
as a pr oxi m at e r es ul tof M or t on' s negl i gence and the r es ul t i ng acc i den t . ” T his C our tnot ed that the u nti m el y-f

i l ed an sw er and aff

i rm at i ve d efenses t o the a m en ded com plai nt al so
v irtually m irrore d i ts ti m ely-fil ed resp o n sive plea d ing t o th e o ri g inal co m p lain t. H o w ev er, the ci ty di d add thr ee a ddi t i onal af f i r m at i ve def

ens es . The a dded def

ens es w er e r es j udi cat a,
acc or d and s at i s f

act i on, and se t of

f or cr edi tforsums Pre s l ey had r ece i ved i n the s ett l ement of the f i r s tl aw s ui t . T he C our tf ound i ti m por t antthat , as of the da t e of

the tr i al , w hi l e the ci ty' s ans w er( and af

f i r m at i ve def

ens es ) t o the amended co mpl a i ntunques t i onabl y w er e f i l ed
m or e than f

ouryear s l at e, a def

aul tj udgm entw as neverr eques t ed. T hi s Courtf ound thatt he def endants houl d have be en al l ow ed t o m ai nt ai n the def ens es as s ert ed i n the amended
a n s w e r.

### 14

¶3 2. I n the c a s e s ub j udi ce , th e p la in tif fs a d d e d f

o u r m o re p la in tif

fs , w ith a ll th e ir j uri sdi ct i on al st at em ents and prayers f or r el i ef, and al so al t ered the servi ce-o f-pr ocess al l egat i on f

orFl uorD ani el
. T hes e ar e the o nl y di f f er ence s betw een the f

i r s tamended
com plai nt and t he seco nd am end ed co m plai nt, w hich i s atthe h eartof this m at t er before us. A def aul tj udgm entne verw as s oughti n thi s m att erf orthe f ai l ur e of Fl uorD ani el t o r es pond t o t he se cond am ended c om pl ai nt . A l s o, the pl ai nt i f f s can s how no pr ej udi ce be caus e Fl uor D an iel p lead ed the s tatu te of li m it ati o n s in it s o ri g inal an sw er. ¶33. B eca us e the pl ai nt i f f s can s how no pr ej udi ce f r om the tr i al court ’ s deci s i on t o al l ow Fl uorD ani el t o am end i t s answ er , and t he t r i al j udge di d notabuse hi s di s cr et i on i n bas i ng hi s rul i ng on P r es ley , w e af f i r m the tr i al court ’ s rul i ng as t o thi s i s s ue.

I V. ¶34. Fi nal l y, the pl ai nt i f f s compl ai n thatthe tr i al c our ta l l ow ed the def endant s t o pr opound i ni t i al di s covery ( i nt err ogat or i es and r eques t s forpr oduct i on) i n J anuary 2008 – m or e than f ouryear s af

t erthe l i t i gat i on had comm ence d. T he pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m they neve rbef

or e had been s erved a r eques tf

ori nt err ogat or i es and pr oduct i on of doc um ent s , a nd f

ur theras s er tt hat the def endant s of

f er ed no j us t i f

i cat i on f orthe del ay. ¶35. T he pl ai nt i f

f s f i l ed a mot i on f

ora pr ot ect i ve or derw i t h t he t ri al co urt , w hi ch w as deni ed as m oo t . T he order poi nt ed outthatthe mot i on had bee n f i l ed pr i ort o the gr antof
s um m ary j udgm ent , and thatacc or di ngl y “no tr i al w oul d be ne ces s ary. ” T he tr i al courtt hen
re a so n e d th a t th e re lie f s o u g h t b y th e p lain tiffs “ is m o o t.” T h e re fo re , this a rg u m e n t is
w ith o u t m e rit.

### 15 CO NC L US I ON ¶3 6. I n concl us i on, t he t r i al cour tdi d n ota bu s e i t s di s c r e t i on i n c on c l ud i ng that t he def endantdi d notw ai ve i t s s t atut e- of
- l i m i t at i on s de f

e ns e . Furtherm or e, i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s i s of l i ke ki nd orclas s i

f i cat i on as the t or t s enumer at ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode, Sect i on 15- 1- 35, a nd i s ther ef or e barr ed by a one
- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T he tr i al
courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n al l ow i ng the def endantt o f

i l e an unt i m el y- amended
ans w er , nordi d i tabus e i t s d i scr et i on i n di s m i s s i ng the pl ai nt i f f s ’ m ot i on f

ora pr ot ect i ve order as m oo t . T heref

ore, the tr i al cou rti s af

fi rm ed o n all i ssues. ¶ 3 7
. AF F I RM ED . WALLER, C. J., CARL SON, P.J., RANDOLPH, AND CHANDLER, JJ., CONCUR. DICKINSON, J., D IS SE NT S WIT H S EPAR AT E WRI TT ENOP INIONJOINE D BY LAMAR AND K IT CH EN S,JJ . KI TC HE NS , J .,DI SS EN TSWI THSE PARA TE WR IT TE N O PINI ON JOINED BY GRAVES, P.J.; DICKINSON, J., JOINS IN P ART. DI CKI NS ON, J US TI CE , DI S S EN TI NG : ¶ 3 8
. W i th g r e a tr e s p e c tf o rmy c o l l e a g u e s i n th e ma j o r i ty , I a m c o mp e l l e d t o r e c o r d my vi ew thatthe t or tof

i nt ent i onal i nf

l i ct i on of e m ot i onal di s tr es s cl ear l y i s nots ubj ectt o t he
one- years t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons i m pos ed by Sect i on 15-1- 35 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode – a c ode
s e c tio n w h ic h s p e c if

ic a lly lis ts th e in te n tio n a l t o rt s to w h ic h it a p p lie s . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1 -3 5 (R e v . 2 0 0 3 ). B e c a u se th e sta tu te’ s list d o e s n o t in c lu d e th e to rt, an d b e c a u se th is C ou rtcon si st en tl y h as h el d thatst atutes of l i m i t at i on s ar e t o b e stri ct l y co nst rued, I m ust
re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t.

### 16

¶39. I t s houl d not be s urpr i s i ng that I turn f i r s t t o the s t atut e’ s l anguage . Sect i on 15- 1- 35 reads as f

oll ow s: A ll ac tio n s fo r a ss a u lt, a ss a u lt an d b a ttery , m a im in g , fals e im p ri s o n m e n t, m al i ci ous a r r es t , ormenace , a nd a l l a ct i ons f ors l ander ous w or ds conce rni ng the per s on ort i t l e, f

orf ai l ur e t o empl oy, and f

orl i bel s , s hal l be comm ence d w ith in o n e (1 ) yea r nex t after th e ca u se o f suc h acti o n acc rue d , an d n o t aft er. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1 -3 5 (R e v . 2 0 0 3 ). It req u ire s n o an a ly sis o r p a rticu lar leg a l in sig h t to ob ser ve thatthe t or tof i nt ent i onal i nf

l i ct i on of

emot i onal di s tr es s i s noti ncl uded i n t he l anguage chos en by the Legi s l atur e. T hus , the s t atut e i t s el f provides no s uppor tf

orthe
m aj or i ty’ s hol di ng. ¶40. W hi l e m eage ra uthor i ty does exi s tf orthe maj or i ty’ s pos i t i on, thi s C our t ’ s pr ece dent f orthe r ever s e pr opos i t i on e nj oys f armore s uppor t . Fori ns t ance , thi s Courtpr evi ous l y has
s t at ed that“i nt ent i onal and/ ornegl i genti nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s cl ai m s ar e governed by the thr ee- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . ” N

or m an v. B ucklew , 684 So
. 2d 12 46 , 12 48 (M i ss. 1996)
. A nd i n N

ic h o ls v. T

r i-S ta te B r ic ka n d

T ile Co ., I n c ., 6 0 8 S o . 2 d 3 2 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ), thi s C our thel d t hatt he pl ai nt i f f’ s cl ai m s w er e “nott i m e barr ed by appl i cat i on of § 15- 1- 35 beca us e i t s cl ai m s ar e notfa i r l y em bodi ed i n any of the ca us es ther e enumer at ed, ” and f ur ther sta ted th a t “[e ]ve n a c a su a l re a d in g o f th e s tatu te lea d s in e sc a p a b ly to th e c o n c lu sio n th a t it does notcover , and w as noti nt ended t o cover , al l i nt ent i onal t or t i ous conduct
. ” N ich o ls , 608 So. 2d at332-333. T he N ich o ls C our tf

ur theras s ert ed, “[ w ] e w i l l nots queez e al l i nt ent i onal
w ro n g s in to th e a c tio n s e n u m e ra ted ,” a n d p o in ted o u t th a t: [t] h is C o u rt h a s ‘c o n sis ten tly h e ld in m a n y c a se s . . . th a t w h e re a sta tu te e n u m e ra tes a n d sp e c ifies th e su b jec t o f th in g s u p o n w h ich it is to o p e ra te, it is

### 17

t o b e con strued as exc l udi ng f r om i t s ef f ect al lthos e not

expr es s l y m ent i oned or und er a general cl ause, tho se no t of li k e kind or cl assi fi cat i on as tho se e n u m e ra te d .’ I d. ( quot i ng Sw . D r ug Co. v. How ar d B r os . P harm acy of Jacks on, I

nc. , 320 So. 2d 776, 669 (M iss. 1 9 7 5 )) ( em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶41. A s the maj or i ty not es , thi s C our thas been i ncons i s t enti n i t s rul i ngs on w hether i nt ent i onal
- i nf

l i ct i on- of

- emot i onal
- di s tr es s cl ai m s ar e s ubj ectt o a one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons underM i s s i s s i ppi Code Sect i on 15- 1- 35. I n s uppor tof i t s vi ew , the maj or i ty ci t es th re e c a se s: S ou th ern v. M iss. S tate H

osp ., 8 5 3 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 2 , 1 2 1 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ); P ier ce v. Cook , 9 9 2 S o . 2 d 6 1 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ); Citi f in ancial Mor t g. Co. , I nc. v. W as hington , 967 So. 2 d 1 6 , 1 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). M aj. O p . at ¶ 2 0
. A s eas il y can be seen , th ese ca ses e n joy far m o re pr es t i ge i n t he maj or i ty’ s anal ys i s than thei rr es pect i ve hol di ngs s ugges tthey s houl d. ¶42. I n S ou th ern , this C o u rt s a id n o th in g a b o u t w h e th e r S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 5 ' s o n e -y e a r sta tu te of l i m i t at i ons a ppl i ed t o a c l ai m of i nt ent i onal i nf

l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s . I ns t ead, t he S ou t h ern C o u rt a n a ly z e d th e p lain tiff’ s in ten tio n a l-in flictio n -o f-e m o tio n a l-d istre ss c laim p u rs u a n t to th e M is s is s ip p i T o rt C la im s A c t’ s o n e -y e a r s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s . S ou th ern , 853 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 1 4 -1 6 . T h u s , Sout he r n provides no author i ty f orthe maj or i ty’ s pr opos i t i on. ¶43. I n P ier ce , t his C ou rtanal yzed the under l yi ng t or tw hi ch gave r i s e t o the cl ai m of in ten tio n a l in flictio n o f e m o tio n a l d istre ss a s a n in ten tio n a l to rt . W h ile th e C o u rt d id , in di ct a, i ndi cat e thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f

orc l ai m s of

i nt ent i onal i nf

l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s w as one year , the anal ys i s w as ba s ed on w hetherthe t or ta ti s s ue w as a cont i nui ng t or t . Fur therm or e, the maj or i ty i n P ier ce ci t ed no author i ty w hat s oeverf r om thi s C our tf

or

### The Cour t in Washi ng ton pin -cited lan gu age fro m Southern th atw as qu oteddirectly 2 

### from t he trial court’ s or der f o r the p rop ositio n th at intention al-inflictio n-o f emotio naldis tres s cl ai ms weresubje ct to a one-ye ar

statut e of li mi tati ons purs uant to Section 15- 1-35, and no t lang uag e from th is Co urt’s an alysis. Washi ngton , 9 67 S o. 2 d at 1 9; So uth ern , 853 So. 2d at 1214. 18 the pr opos i t i on thatcl ai m s of i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s ar e subj ectt o a oney e a r s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s . P ier ce , 992 So. 2d at618- 20. ¶44. Fi nal l y, i n W

as hington , the C our ti ncorr ect l y ci t ed S ou th ern fort he pr opos i t i on t hat i nt ent i onal
- i nf

l i ct i on- of

- emot i onal
- di s tr es s cl ai m s ar e s ubj ectt o a one- years t atut e of lim ita tio n u n d e r S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 5
. W as hington , 967 So. 2d at19. A s pr evi ous l y s t at ed, the S ou t h ern C our tanal yzed the l i m i t at i ons per i od underthe M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ct , r ather than Sect i on 15- 1- 35. 2 ¶45. I n or dert o s cr ap t ogethersupportfori t s w eak pos i t i on, the maj or i ty ci t es nonbi ndi ng fe d e ra l in te rp re ta tio n . E v e n so , th e re a re fe d e ra l c a s e s g o in g b o th w a y s . S e e , e .g . Hu bb ard
v. Mis s . Conf

er ence of

U nited Met

hodis t Church , 1 3 8 F
. S u p p . 2 d 7 8 0 (S
. D
. M iss. 2 0 0 1 ), d ism issed , 3 1 F ed
. A p p x . 1 5 3 (5th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). ¶46. T he conf

us i on as t o w hetherSect i on 15- 1- 35 appl i es t o cl ai m s of i nt ent i onal i nf

l i ct i on of e m ot i onal di s tr es s s t ems f r om thi s C our t ’ s opi ni on i n Cit y of Mound B ayou v. Johnson , 562 So. 2d. 1212, 1217 ( M i s s . 1990) , i n w hi ch thi s C our thel d: O urcas es s ugges tthe s t atut e' s f or ce i s no tl i m i t ed t o the ei ghtt or t s l abel ed th e re in
. B ush v. Cit

y of L aure l , 234 M i s s . 93, 103, 105 S o. 2d 562, 566 ( 1958) s ays the s t atut e i ncl udes t or t s “of the type enumer at ed” i n the s t atut e. D e n n is v. T r avel ers I nsur ance Co. , 23 4 S o . 2 d 6 2 4 , 6 2 6 (M iss. 1 9 7 0 ) i s m o re expans i ve, hol di ng thatthe s t atut e “pr ovi des an i ncl us i ve l i s t i ng o f the r ecogni zed i nt ent i onal t or t s . ” Souther n Lan d & Resour ces Co. , I nc. v. D obbs , 46 7 S o. 2d 652, 654 ( M i s s . 1985) r epea t s the poi nt . I f thi s be s o, the

### 19

p ro sc rip tio n o f th e sta tu te n e c e ss a rily e x ten d s b e y o n d th e to rt lab e ls s peci f i cal l y appea r i ng, f

orbuta mom ent ' s re f

l ect i on cal l s t o m i nd any num ber of i nt ent i onal tortact i ons r ecogni zed i n M i s s i s s i ppi l aw w hi ch ar e not e n u m e ra ted a s s u c h in S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -3 5
. . . . T h e b e tter v iew is th a t sta tu te ext ends t o al l act i ons s ubs t ant i al l y l i ke unt o the enumer at ed ei ghtand f or w hi ch no s peci f

i c s t atut e has been pr ovi ded. H ow ever , as w as true i n W as hington , the pos i t i on as s ert ed by thi s C our ti n i t s cur i ous opi ni on i n Cit

y of Mound B ayou w a s w h o lly u n su p p o rte d b y the ca se s c ited the re in . In fa c t, qui t e the oppos i t e i s true. ¶47. I n B u sh , the C o u rt sta ted : “A c a su a l re a d in g o f C o d e S e c tio n 7 3 2 , su p ra , rea d ily reveals that the p res ent act i on of the ap pell ants i s notof the type enumer at ed i n s ai d C ode
s e c tio n a n d th a t sa id C o d e s e c tio n is , th e re fo re , n o t a p p lica b le
. ” B u sh , 234 M i s s . 93, 103, 105 So. 2d 562, 566 ( 1958) ( emphasi s added)
. T he D e n n is C our tf ound thatthe cl ai m at i s s ue i n thatm att erw as “menace, ” al though n otl abel ed as s uch i n the compl ai nt , and w as ther ef or e s ubj ectt o a one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons be caus e menace i s one of the enumer at ed t or t s i n Sect i on 15- 1- 35
. D e n n is , 234 So. 2d at626- 627. ¶48. Fi nal l y, the Souther n L and & R es ourc es C our thel d the pr eci s e oppos i t e of w hatt he Cit y of Mound B ayou C our tcl ai m ed i thel d. T he S ou th ern L an d & R esou rces C our ts ai d: “Fr om a r evi ew of

the l egi s l at i ve hi s t ory i ti s appar entt hatt he pol i cy of pr ovi di ng a one- year statu te of li m it ati o n s for l is t ed i nt ent i onal t or t s . . . . has been pe rpetuat ed i n thi s s t at e. ” S. L a n d & R e s ., 46 7 S o. 2 d at655. T he C our tw enton t o hol d thatSect i on 15- 1- 35 di d not
a p p ly to a n ac tio n fo r d a m a g e s fo r w ro n g fu l fo re c lo su re , b u t rath e r th e six -y e a r “ c a tch -a ll” lim ita tio n s p e ri o d fo u n d in M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -4 9 a p p lie d
. I d.

### 20

¶49. T o r eac h thi s concl us i on, t he m aj or i ty s ei zes upon the “of l i ke ki nd orcl as s i f

i cat i on” l anguage f

ound i n Southw es t

D r ug Com

pany and quot ed i n N

ic h o ls, w hi l e i gno ri ng t he pr ece di ng “ un de ra ge ne r a l c l a us e ” r e qu i r e ment . The maj or i ty’ s a t t e mptt o c on s true t he i nt ent i onal
- i nf

l i ct i on- of

- emot i onal
- di s tr es s c l ai m a s one “f ai r l y embodi ed” i n Sect i on 15- 1- 35 of f ends the ce ntury- ol d rul e that , w hen a s t atut e “i s pl ai n and unambi guous . . . [ i ] ti s not
w i thi n the pr ovi nce of

thi s [ C ] our tt o a dd t o the l aw as the Legi s l atur e has w r i t t en i t . ” City of H az lehurs t

v. Mayes , 96 M i s s . 656, 51 So. 890, 891 ( 1910)
. W hati s pl ai n and unambi guous f

r om a r eadi ng of

Sec t i on 15- 1- 35 i s thati nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of em ot i onal di s tr es s i s s i m pl y noti ncl uded. ¶ 5 0
. F o r th a t re a so n sta ted h e re in , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. L AMAR AN D K I T CH E NS , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON
. KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶51. I f

ul l y concur w i th Just i ce D i cki ns on’ s w el l
- r eas oned di s s ent . T he t or t s t o w hi ch a
one- years t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons appl i es ar e s peci f i cal l y desi gnat ed by s t at e s t atut e, and i nt ent i onal i nf

l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s i s notone of them. M i ss. C od e A nn. § 15- 1- 35 (R e v . 2 0 0 3 ). In o rd e r to ad d inte n tio n a l in flictio n o f e m o tio n a l d istre ss to th e sta tu te’ s list, i twa s n e c e s s a r y f

o rth e ma j o r i ty t o a p p l y n o n - b i n d i n g f e d e r a l c a s e l a w. ¶52. H ow ever , even i f a one- year s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i ed, thi s def ens e w as w ai ved; i tcannotbe cr edi bly a r gued thatFl uorD ani el di d notknow the pl ai nt i f f s w er e r ai s i ng an i nt ent i onal i nf

l i ct i on of

emot i on al d i s tr es s cl ai m unt i l thi s C our tr ender ed i t s opi ni on. A l though the compl ai ntw as i nart f ul l y dr af t ed, thi s cl ai m w as s quar el y ati s s ue and

### 21

tho rough l y argue d o n the defend ant’ s fi rs tm oti on f or s um m ary j ud gm ent. In theirres po nse t o the f i r s tm ot i on f

orsumm ary j udgm ent , fi l ed D ece m ber14, 2004, the pl ai nt i f f s ar gued that t he y h a d “ de mons tr a t e d a vi a bl e c a us e of a c t i on on a the ory o f

i nf l i c t i on of

e mot i onal di s tr es s , ” and ci t ed t w o cas es w hi ch di r ect l y addr es s i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of

emot i onal d is tr e s s c la im s , L ee v. G olden T r iangle Planning and D eve lopm ent D is tr i ct , I nc. , 797 So. 2d 845 ( M i s s . 2001) , and Bro wn v. I nte r c it y Fede r al

Bank f orSav ing , 738 So. 2d 262 (M i ss. C t . A pp . 19 99 ). A tthe sum m ary j ud gm ent heari ng , the att orney for the p lai n ti ffs
s peci f i cal l y ar gued thatthey w er e pur s i ng a cl ai m f or“i nt ent i onal i nf

l i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s , ” and ther e w as no obj ect i on f r om Fl uorD ani el on thi s poi nt . T he or dergr ant i ng
sum m ary j ud gm ent r efer s t o “t ort i ou s i nfl i ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s, ” and ci t es P egues v. Em e rs on Electr i c Com pa ny , 913 F. Supp. 976, 982 ( N
. D
. M i s s . 1996) , a ca s e def i ni ng inten ti o n al i n fl ict ion o f em o ti o n al distress. N o tably , th is o rde r w as d rafted b y F luo r D an iel ’s att orney. ¶5 3
. T h ere fore , the rec o rd ind icates that F luo r D an iel w a s fu lly aw are that the p lai n ti ffs
w e re a ss e rtin g a c laim fo r in ten tio n a l in flictio n o f e m o tio n a l d istre s s , a n d a t n o p o in t d id Fl uorD ani el obj ect . E ven w hen the ca s e w as he r e on the f i r s ta ppeal , one of

the i s s ues Fl uor D an iel arg u ed in it s b ri ef w as “ w h e th e r the circu itco u rtp rop erly g ran ted F D S C su m m ary jud g m en t on the p lai n ti ffs’ cl aim s for i ntent i on al i nfl i ct i on of em oti on al distress . ” A gai n, Fl uorD ani el neverar gued thati tw as unaw ar e of s uch a c l ai m , even i n i t s s econd mot i on f or
su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, an d it h a s ra ise d th e is su e fo r th e firs t tim e in th e s e c o n d a p p e a l to th is C our t . Iti s di s i ngenuous , atbes t , f orFl uorD ani el now t o cl ai m thati nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of

### 22

emot i onal di s tr es s di d notemer ge as a cl ai m unt i l June 21, 2007, the dat e thi s C our ti s s ued its o p in io n in th e first a p p e a l. ¶54. U nder M i s si ssi pp i R ule of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 15( b) , a compl ai nt i s amended t o add a cl ai m by i m pl i ed cons entof the part i es , i f

the pl ai nt i f

f r ai s es the cl ai m i n r es pons e t o a
m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent , a nd the tr i al j udge deci des the i s s ue on s um m ary j udgm ent
w ith o u t a n o b

je c tio n fr o m th e d e fe n d a n t. P r es tw ood v. Cook , 65 8 S o. 2d 85 9, 86 1-62 (M i ss. 1995)
. Thi s i s pr e c i s e l y whatoc c urr e d i n the i ns t a ntc a s e ; a nd by f a i l i ng t o o bj e c tt o the in ten tio n a l in flictio n o f e m o tio n a l d istre ss c la im , F lu o r D a n iel im p licitly c o n se n ted to l i t i ga t i on o f

thi s i s s ue . The r e f

or e , thi s c l a i m w a s f

ul l y a pp a r e ntt o a l l p a r t i e s and t he t r i al
courtby, att he l at es t , D ece m ber14, 2004, the dat e the pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed thei rr es pons e t o Fl uor D an iel ’s fi rstm o ti o n for su m m ary jud g m en t. Itw as n o t un ti l th ree y e a rs later, on Jan u ary 22, 2008, thatthe def

endantr ai s ed the one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s s ue f

orthe f i r s tt i m e. G i ve n the p r otr a c t e d de l a y i n r a i s i ng thi s a f f i r mat i ve d e f

e ns e , a nd Fl uo rDani e l ’ s act i ve part i ci pat i on i n the l i t i gat i on, Fl uorD ani el acqui es ced i n the l i t i gat i on of thi s i s s ue and
w a iv e d th e s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s d e fe n s e (a s s u m in g , ar guendo , thatthe on e- years t atut e of lim ita tio n s e v e n a p p lie s ). Mis s . Cr edit Center , I nc. v. Hor ton , 926 S o. 2d 16 7, 18 1 (M i ss. 2 0 0 6 ). ¶55. Y et , even i f i t coul d be l egi t i m at el y ar gued that the def endant w as f

i r s t put on not i ce
o f th e in ten tio n a l in flictio n o f e m o tio n a l d istre ss c laim o n J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 0 7 , F lu o r D a n iel s til l
w ai t ed t oo l ong t o ra i s e the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons def

ens e. I n Hor ton , 9 2 6 S o . 2 d a t 1 8 1 , this C our thel d thatan ei ght
- m onth del ay w as t oo l ong:

### 23

[ A ] bs entext r eme and unus ual ci r cumst ance s [ , ] an ei ghtm onth unj us t i f i ed del ay i n t he as s ert i on and pur s ui tof a ny af f i r m at i ve def

ens e orotherr i ght w h ich , if tim e ly p u rsu e d , c o u ld s e rv e to te rm in a te th e lit ig a tio n , co u p led w ith act i ve part i ci pat i on i n the l i t i gat i on pr oces s , cons t i tut es w ai veras a mat t erof l a w. T he maj or i ty m akes no att empt t o di s t i ngui s h Hor ton f r om the pr es entcas e ort o expl ai n w hy
a s even- m onth del ay i s any di f f er entfr om an ei ght
- m onth del ay w hen i tcomes t o as s er t i ng an af f i r m at i ve def

ens e. ¶56. T hus , w hi l e I agr ee w i th J us t i c e D i c ki ns on thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons f

or i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of e m ot i onal di s tr es s i s thr ee year s , I a l s o f i nd Fl uorD ani el w ai ved thi s def ens e by
w a iti n g so lo n g to ra ise th e iss u e . F o r th e se re a so n s, I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. G R A V E S, P . J. , JO I N S T H I S O P I N I O N . D I C K I N SO N , J. , JO I N S T H IS O P I N I O N I N P A R T .