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 6 - I A- 0 1 9 9 1 - S CT RE VEREND MI T CHEL L HEDG EP ET H AND CATH ERI NE H ED GEPETH
v. M ELODY J

OH NSON, I NDI VI DUALLY

AND AS AN AGEN T OFSTATE FARM ; AN D STATE FARM FI RE & CAS UALT Y I

NSURA NCE COM P AN Y
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 01/ 2006 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. EDW ARD C. P RI S OCK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: J ACKSON COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: CH RI STOPHER C. VA N C LEAV E C L Y D E H . G U N N , III W . CO RB AN GUN N A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL EES: B. W A Y N E W I LLI A M S DAN W . W EBB J . DO UG LAS FOSTER VI NCENT J
. CAS TI GLI OLA, J R. J OHN A. BA NAHAN NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 02/ 21/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E W A L L E R , P .J ., D I C K I N S O N A N D L A M A R , J J . LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s cas e com es before t he C our t on i nt er l ocut ory appea l f r om the C i r cui t C our tof J acks on C ounty. T he ce ntr al i s s ue i s ven ue. M i t chel l and C ather i ne H edgepe th f i l ed a
c o m p lain t in Ja c k so n C o u n ty a g a in st M e lo d y Jo h n so n , ind iv id u a lly a n d a s a n a g e n t o f S tate

### Th e Hed gep eths p urch ased in suran ce on th e Jackso n C ountyparso nag e from S tate 1 

### Far m’s Hinds County of

fi cebec aus e the He dgepe ths had an exi sting rel ations hip wi th t he Hinds County of

fi ce . 2 Far m Fi r e and Casua l ty I ns ur ance C om pany, and St at e Farm Fi r e and Casua l ty I ns ur ance C om pany. Pl ai nt i f

f s as s ertcaus es of

act i on i nt eral i a f

ornegl i gence , negl i gent
m i sr epresent at i on , fr aud , bad fai th b reach of contr act , and i nfl i ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s. T he com plai nt fol l ow ed S t at e Farm ’s denial of cov erage f or pr op erty d am age incurr ed as a
res ultof H urr i cane K atr i na. T he tr i al courtgr ant ed D ef endant s ’ M ot i on f

orC hange of V enue f r om J acks on C ounty t o M adi s on C oun ty ( J oh ns on ’ s c ou nty o f r e s i de nc e ) , f

i nd i ng t hat M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 11- 11- 3 mandat es thata n i ndi vi dual def endantbe s ued
o n ly in h is o r h e r c o u n ty o f r e sid e n c e . T h is C o u rt g ra n ted in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l p u rsu a n t to M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 5.

FACTS ¶2
. I n J une 2004, R ev . M i t c he l l Hedg e pe th a nd h i s wi f e Cat her i ne moved i nt o t he p arso n ag e o f S t. P au l U n it ed M etho d istC h u rch in O ce an S p ri n g s. T h ey p u rch ase d ren ter’s in su ran ce from S tat e F arm F ir e a n d C asu alty C o m p an y thro u g h ag en t M elod y Jo h n so n to
covert hei rper s onal prope r ty. Johns on’ s of f i ce i s l ocat ed i n H i nds C ounty, buts he r es i des i n M adi s on C ount y. O n A ugus t29, 2005, much of the H edgepe ths ’ per s onal pr operty w as 1 des tr oyed by H urr i cane K atr i na. ¶3. A ccor di ng t o the H edgepe ths , m os t of thei r per s onal pr operty on the f i r s t f l oor of t he p a rso n a g e w a s lo st a s a re su lt o f sto rm su rg e . T h e in su ra n c e c laim s o n th e p e rso n a l p ro p e rty

### 3

l os tdue t o s t or m s ur ge w ere den i ed beca us e the H edgepe ths ’ r ent er ’ s i ns ur ance di d not i ncl ude a s epar at e f

l ood i ns ur ance pol i cy. T he H edgepeths al l ege thatthey r eques t ed J ohns on pr ocur e f

l ood i ns ur ance on the par s onage i n addi t i on t o r egul arr ent er ’ s i ns ur ance beca us e the par s onage w as neara bayou. W hen the H edgepe ths m ade thi s r eques t , J ohns on t ol d them t hatf

l ood insur ance w as unavai l abl e t o them becaus e they w er e r ent er s , not ho m eow ners. ¶4. B ef

or e H urr i cane K atr i na m ade l andf al l , the H edgepe ths evac uat ed t o J acks on. A f t er bei ng i nf or m ed by a re l at i ve t hatt he par s onage ha d s us t ai ned f l ood damage, the H edgepe ths
c o n tac ted J o h n so n to p lac e h e r o n n o tice o f th e ir im p e n d in g in su ra n c e c laim . A c c o rd in g to th e H e d g e p e th s, Jo h n so n sta ted th a t if th e re w a s w a ter d a m a g e to th e ir p ro p e rty , the y sh o u ld “make s ur e s om e w i ndow s w er e bl ow n outas a r es ul tof the hu rr i cane. ” U pon r etur ni ng hom e, the H edgepe ths i nf or m ed J ohns on thatw at erhad damaged orde s tr oyed m os tof t he pr operty on the f

i r s tfl oorof the par s onage butthatal l of the w i ndow s w er e s t i l l boar ded up and i nt act . A ccor di ng t o the H edgepe ths , J ohns on r epl i ed, “M r s . H edg epeth, I don’ tw ant y o u t o t h i n k b a d o f

me , b u ty o u r e a l l y n e e d t o ma k e s u r e th a tth e wa t e re n t e r e d y o u rh o me th ro u g h b ro k e n w in d o w s . . . if y o u k n o w w h a t I m e a n .” ¶ 5 . I n Se p t e mb e r2 0 0 5 , St a t e Fa r m a d j u s t e rLa rry M i l l e ri n s p e c t e d th e He d g e p e th s ’ h o me and t ol d them tha tbeca us e they di d nothave f l ood cover age, thei rcl ai m w oul d be deni ed. A notheradj us t er , R andy Pi l l af ant , w entt o the H edgepe ths ’ hom e i n O ct oberand i nf or m ed them t hatthei rc l ai m w oul d notbe c over ed. J ohns on a nd anotherSt at e Farm r epr es ent at i ve, D avi d H addock, w entt o the H edgepe ths ’ home i n N ovemberf oran i ns pect i on. W hi l e ther e,

### 4

J ohns on al l egedl y urge d the H edgepe ths t o l i s ts om e of the damaged per s onal pr operty f r om the H edgepe ths ’ hom e as bei ng l ocat ed on the s econd f l oorand notthe f

i r s t , even though t he H edg epeths al ready h ad tol d Joh nson that al l of the dam aged property w as l ocated on the fi rs t f l oor . J ohns on al s o admi t t ed thats he di d notm ake f l ood i ns ur ance avai l abl e to the H e d g e p e th s w h e n th e y re q u e ste d it. P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶6. O n F ebruary 1 3, 2 00 6, the H edg epeths f i l ed a c om pl ai nti n the C i r cui tC our t of J acks on C ount y agai ns tM el ody J ohns on, St at e Far m , a nd e i ght“ J ohn a nd J ane D oes . ” The H edgepe ths a s s ert ed thatve nue w as pr operpur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 11- 11- 3 be caus e “a s ubs t ant i al e ventthatc aus ed orc ontr i but ed t o the i nj ur i es and damages of the pl ai nt i f

f s occurr ed i n J acks on C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi
. ” The defenda nt s f i l ed a M ot i on t o D i s mi s s Pu r s ua ntt o Rul e 1 2 a nd Al t e rna t i ve l y M ot i on f orCha ng e o f

V enue a nd Sever ance on M ar ch 20. Spec i al Ci r cui tC our tJ udge Edw ar d C
. Pr i s ock ent er ed an O r der T r ans f err i ng V enue, and St ayi ng E xecut i on of O r der , and St ayi ng A l l Pr ocee di ngs , Pendi ng R eso luti o n o f T h e P eti ti o n for In terl o cu tory A p p e a l F il ed b y the P lai n ti ffs. T h is C o u rt g ra n ted th e p e tit io n fo r in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l. A N A L Y S IS I . W he t he r t he t r i alc our t e r r e d i n i t s i nt e r pr e t at i on o f M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A n n o ta te d S e c ti o n 1 1 -1 1 -3 (1 )( a )( I ). ¶ 7 . “ T h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w f o ra c h a n g e o f

v e n u e i s a b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n . T h e tr i a l j u d g e 's
rul i ng ther eon w i l l notbe di s turbed on appe al unl es s i tcl ear l y appea r s thatther e has been a n

### 5

abus e of di s cr et i on orthatt he di s cr et i on has notbeen j us t l y and pr oper l y exer ci s ed undert he ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. ” H ayes v. E nter

gy Mi s s . , I nc. , 8 7 1 S o . 2 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). H ow ever , the i nt erpr et at i on of a s t atut e i s a ques t i on of l aw r equi r i ng thi s C our tt o appl y a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . Ch a m p lu v ierv. S ta te , 942 So. 2d 145, 150 ( M i s s . 2006)
. The st atute i n q uest i on reads: C i vi l act i ons of

w hi ch t he ci r cui tcourthas or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on s hal l be comm ence d i n t he county w here t he def endant r es i des , O R , i f

a corpor at i on, i n the cou nty of it s p ri n ci p al pl ace o f bu si n ess , O R i n the county w her e a s ubs t ant i alal l e ge d ac t or om i s s i on o c c ur r e d O R w her e a s ubs t ant i ale ve nt t hat c aus e d t he i nj ur y o c c ur r e d. M i s s . C ode A nn § 11- 11- 3( 1) ( a) ( I ) ( R ev. 2004) ( emphasi s added)
. T hi s cur r entver s i on of the s t atut e bec am e eff

ect i ve on Sept ember1, 2004. I n m aki ng thei rm ot i on f orchange of venue, the def

endant s a r gued thatthi s c ode s ect i on r equi r es thatan i ndi vi dual def endantbe
s ued onl y i n t he def

endant ’ s county of

r es i dence
. ¶8. T he def

endant s ar gue that i t w as the i nt ent of the L egi s l atur e t o r equi r e an i ndi vi dual def endantt o be s ued onl y i n hi s orhercounty of r esi dence
. T hati nt ent , acc or di ng t o t he de f e nd a nt s , i s i l l us tr a t e d b y the e vo l ut i on of the ve nu e s t a tut e . Cons i de r i ng bo th t he legislat ive c o n text an d j u d ici al co n stru cti o n of prior ve rsi o n s of th e statute, th e tr ial c o u rt
a g re e d w ith th e d e fe n d a n ts’ p o sitio n , sta tin g , “ [i] t ap p e a rs to this co u rt th a t th e leg isla tu re d id noti nt end, nordoes the s t atut e s how thatthe l egi s l atur e eve ri nt ended to cr eat e a s i tuat i on
w h e re a r e s id e n t d e fe n d a n t w o u ld b e d e p riv e d o f h is rig h t to b e su e d in th e c o u n ty o f h is

### The tri alcourt ba se d it s a ss erti oninp art on thi s Cour t’ s hol ding in Ca

pita l City 2 

### Ins ura nce Co . v. G.B. “Boots ” Smit h Corp. , 889 So. 2d 505 (Mi ss . 2004) . Howe ver , “Boots ” Smit

h addressed the issue of plaintiffs joinin g no n-resid ent defen dants in order to usethe“venue good for one i s good f or a ll ” r uleto f ix ve nue in theplaintif

f’ s c ounty of residen ce. Th e Hed gep eths are seekin g to hav e v enu e inJackso n C ountyno t becau se it is their co unty of residen ce, b ut becau se substantial acts, o mission s, or in jury -causin g ev ents took pl ac e in J ac kson County whic h m akei t theproper ve nue for

this ca se . The re for e, the tria l c ourt ’s re li anc e on “B oo ts” S mith is mi spl ac ed.

6 re sid e n c e .” T h e trial c o u rt’s r e lian c e o n leg isla tiv e in ten t in in te rp re tin g th is s tatu te is

2
m i s pl ace d and unnec es s ary. ¶9. “I t i s onl y w hen a s t atut e i s uncl ear or ambi guous that w e l ook beyond the l anguage of the s t atut e t o det erm i ne i t s m eani ng. ” Co lem a n v. S ta te , 94 7 S o. 2d 87 8, 88 1 (M i ss. 2006)
. “W e have l ong hel d t hatw her e a s t atut e i s pl ai n and unambi guous , ther e i s no r oom f orcons truct i on. ” R uhl

v. W alton , 955 So. 2d 279, 282 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng Cal lahan v. L e a k e Co u n t

y De mo c r a ti c E

x e c u ti v e Co mm. , 773 So. 2d 938, 940 ( M i s s . 2000) )
. “W hen the w or ds of

a s t atut e ar e pl ai n and unam bi guous ther e i s no r oom f ori nt erpr et at i on or
cons truct i on, and w e appl y the st atut e acc or di ng t o the m eani ng of thos e w or ds
. ” Colem an , 947 So. 2d at881. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 11-11- 3( 1) ( a) ( I ) i s s uch a pl ai n and unambi guous s t atut e. ¶10. “O f r i ght , the pl ai nt i f f s el ect s among the perm i s s i bl e venues , and hi s choi ce m us tbe
s us t ai ned unl es s i n the end ther e i s no cr edi bl e evi dence s uppor t i ng the f actual bas i s f

orthe cl ai m of venue. ” Fli

ght L ine, I nc. v. T anksley , 608 So
. 2d 11 49 , 115 5 (M i ss. 19 9 2 ). Cl e a r l y, Se c t i on 1 1- 11
- 3( 1) ( a ) ( I ) l a ys o utf ou rv e nu e o pt i on s f

r om w hi c h pl a i nt i f

f s can cho ose w hen f

i l i ng a l aw sui t . T he fi rs ttw o are based o n the st atus of the d efendan t ; that i s,

### 7

if the d efe n d an t i s a re side n t defe n d an t, the s u itm ay b e fi led in h is co u n ty o f reside n ce ; or, i f t he def endanti s a corpor at i on, t he sui tm ay be f i l ed i n the county of

i t s pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s . T he l att ertw o venue opt i on s focus o n t he al l eged a ct s orom i s s i ons of t he def endant s ; t hati s , t he sui tm ay be f i l ed w her e a subs t ant i al al l eged ac tor omi s s i on occurr ed;
or , f i nal l y, s ui tm ay be f

i l ed w her e a s ubs t ant i al eventthatcaus ed the i nj ury occurr ed. A ccor di ng t o the cl earl anguage of the s t atut e, “[ c] i vi l act i ons of w hi ch the ci r cui tcourthas ori ginal j uri sdi ct i on shal l be co m m enced i n” o ne o f these four pl aces. ¶ 1 1
. B e c a u se th e la n g u a g e o f M is s is s ip p i C o d e A n n o ta te d S e c tio n 1 1 -1 1 -3 (1 )(a )(I) is p lain and unambi guous , w e nee d notl ook t o pa s tve r s i ons of the s t atut e t o a s cert ai n the l egi s l at i ve i nt entbehi nd i t . T he t ri al co urterr ed i n i t s hol di ng thatthi s s t atut e r equi r es r es i dent def endant s t o be s ued onl y i n thei rcounty of r es i dence
. A s s uch, underthe ci r cumst ance s
o f th is c a se , the trial c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in g ra n tin g d e fe n d a n ts a c h a n g e o f v e n u e to M ad ison C o u n ty. W h il e M ad ison C o u n ty is on e o f th e p erm issi b le ve n u es, th e P lai n ti ff’ s ch o ice o f ven u e in Jac k so n C o u n ty m u st b e su stai n ed i f i t is a p rop er ve n u e p u rsu a n t to M is s is s ip p i C o d e A n n o ta te d S e c tio n 1 1 -1 1 -3
. I I . W het her venue i s proper i n Jacks on C ounty. ¶1 2. T he d e f

e nd a nt s c l a i m t ha te ve n i f we r e j e c tthe i ri nt e rpr e t a t i on of Sect i on 11- 11- 3( 1) ( a) ( I ) , the tr ans f

erof venue t o M adi s on C ounty s t i l l w as prope r , as J acks on C ounty does notqual i f

y underany of

the f ouropt i ons l ai d outi n the s t atut e. ¶ 1 3
. In a d d re ss in g th e q u e stio n a s to w h e th e r v e n u e is p ro p e r in Ja c k so n C o u n ty , w e n o te thatJ ackson C ou nty i s nei ther John son’s coun ty o f r esi den ce no r St at e F arm ’s pri ncipal plac e

### 8

of bus i nes s . T her ef

or e, w e m us texam i ne t he f act s of thi s cas e t o det erm i ne w hetherei ther “a s ubs t ant i al al l eged a ctorom i s s i on” or“ a s ubs t ant i al e ventthatcaus ed i nj ury” occ ur r ed i n J acks on C ounty. T he def endant s poi ntt o Medical A ssuran ce C o. of Missi ssi pp iv. M yers , 956 So. 2d 213 ( M i s s . 2007) , t o s uppor tthei rpr opos i t i on thatvenue w as i m pr operi n J acks on C ounty. I n M

yers , D r . M yer s , a H ol m es County r es i dent , s ued hi s i ns ur ance company,
w hi ch had i t s pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s i n M adi s on C ounty, forf ai l ur e t o r enew cover age. M y e rs, 9 5 6 S o . 2 d at 21 4 -15
. T h e tri al co u rtli sted the fo ll o w ing fac tors su p p o rt ing M y ers’s cl ai m thatvenue w as pr operi n H ol m es C ounty: ( 1) H ol m es C ounty i s w here M yers had compl et ed hi s appl i cat i on; ( 2) the pol i cy had been i s s ued t o M yer s i n H ol m es Count y; ( 3) the prem ium s w ere m ail ed fr o m H o lm es C o u n ty; (4) th ere w ere co m m u n icati o n s by m a il
a n d p h o n e b e tw e e n H o lm e s C o u n ty a n d M a d iso n C o u n ty ; (5 ) o n e o f M y e rs’ s c lin ics w a s in H o lm e s C o u n ty ; a n d (6 ) H o lm e s C o u n ty is w h e re M y e rs c h o s e to fi le s u it. I d . at218. ¶14. A ppl yi ng i n M

yers th e sa m e v e rsio n o f S e c tio n 1 1 -1 1 -3 a s in th e c u rre n t c a se , this C o u rt h e ld th a t v e n u e w a s p ro p e r i n M a d is o n C o u n ty . I d . at220. N o “s ubs t ant i al eventt hat
c a u se d in

ju ry ” to D r. M y e rs o c c u rr e d in H o lm e s C o u n ty . T h e re fo re , in o rd e r to o b tain pr opervenue i n H ol m es C ounty, M yer s needed t o show thata s ubs t ant i al al l eged a ctor
om i s s i on occurr ed ther e. O bvi ous l y, the f act s l ai d outby the tr i al courti n M yer s w er e not
e n o u g h to tie v e n u e to H o lm e s C o u n ty . “ T h e v e n u e sta tu te d o e s n o t allo w th e p ili n g o f a c ts
orevent s t o es t abl i s h venue. I ts peci f i cal l y r equi r es a s ubs t ant i al al l eged act , om i s s i on, or i nj ury- caus i ng eventt o have happened i n a part i cul arj ur i s di ct i on i n or derf orvenue t o be pr operther e. ” I

d . at219. T he mer e f

actthatH ol m es C ounty i s the pl ace w her e M yer s had

### 9

“expe r i ence d” bei ng uni nsure d w as notenough t o m eetthe venue r equi r ement s of Sect i on 11- 11- 3. I n otherw or ds , the “a l l eged a ctorom i s s i on, ” w hi ch w as t he fai l ur e t o r enew M yer s ’ s i ns ur ance pol i cy, occurr ed atthe i ns ur ance c om pany’ s of f i ce i n M adi s on C ount y,
an d that is w h ere v en u e w as p rop er. ¶15. W hi l e i ti s c l earthatthi s Courtw as c orr ecti n i t s appl i cat i on of Sect i on 11- 11- 3 t o the f act s i n M yers , th e He d g e p e th s ’ c l a i ms c l e a r l y a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . Th e He d g e p e th s ’ c l a i ms
a re b a se d , a t l e a s t i n p a rt, o n a c tu a l lo ss e s s u ffe re d d u e to H u rric a n e K a trin a , as th e ir
com plai nt al l eges the l os s of thous ands of

dol l ar s i n per s onal pr operty as a r es ul tof the d e fe n d a n t’s fa ilu re to p ro v id e flo o d in su ra n c e . In a d d iti o n to th e ir c laim s fo r fa ilu re to pr oc ur e f

l oo d i ns ur a nc e on the i rpr op e r ty, the H e dg e pe ths a l s o a l l e ge tha tJ oh ns on ur ged th e m t o c o mmi ti n s u r a n c e f r a u d
. J o h n s o n wa s i n J a c k s o n Co u n ty a tth e He d g e p e th s ’ h o me
w hen s he al l eged l y t ol d M r s . H edgepe th t o l i s ts om e of the pr operty w hi ch had be en des tr oyed o n t he fi r s tf l ooras havi ng been l ocat ed on the s econd f l oor . T he H edgepe ths
a lleg e th a t th is o u tra g e o u s c o n d u c t c a u se d th e m m e n tal a n g u ish a n d e m o tio n a l d istre ss . S tate Far m al s o ha d tw o r epr es ent at i ves i nf or m the H edgepe ths i n pe r s on i n J acks on C ounty t hat th e ir c laim w o u ld b e d e n ie d b e c a u se th e y d id n o t h a v e flo o d c o v e ra g e . Ja c k so n C o u n ty is one of the pr opervenues f

orthi s s ui tand ther ef

or e, the Pl ai nt i f

f’ s choi ce of

venue mustbe
s us t ai ned. CO NC L US I ON ¶16. M i ssi ssi pp i C od e A nn ota t ed Sect i on 11- 11- 3( 1) ( a) ( I ) i s pl ai n an d un am biguou s. T her ef or e, w e appl y t he cl earm eani ng of the w or ds of

the s t atut e, layi ng outf ourvenue

### 10

opt i ons f ora pl ai nt i f

f f i l i ng a l aw s ui t . B eca us e “s ubs t ant i al al l eged a ct s , ” as w el l as “a
s ubs t ant i al eventthatcaus ed i nj ury” occurr ed i n Jac ks on C ounty, Jac ks on C ounty i s a pr oper
v e n u e fo r th is c a se . T h e h o ld in g o f th e trial c o u rt tra n sfe rrin g v e n u e to M a d iso n C o u n ty is
r ever s ed, and thi s cas e i s r emanded t o the C i r cui tC our tof J acks on C ou nty forf

ur ther pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th t hi s opi ni on. ¶ 1 7 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON AND RAN DO LPH, J J . , CO NCU R. DI AZ , P. J . , AND GR AVES, J . , CONC UR I N RESULT ONLY .