IN THE SUPREME COURTOF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2005-IA-01001-SCT MEDICAL A SSURAN

CE COMPANY OF MISSISSIPPI
v. RONAL D V. MYERS, SR., M.D. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/04/2005 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JANACE H. G OREE COURTFROM WHICH APPEALED: HOLMES CO UNTY C HANCE RY COURT ATTORNEYS FOR

APPELLA

NT: JEFFREY R YAN BAKER WALTER T. JO HNSON C. R. MONTG OMERY ROBERT M. JONES J. COLLINS W OHNER ATTORNEYS FOR

APPELLEE : H. L. MERIDETH , JR. DAVID L. MERIDETH EDWARD BLACKMON , JR. NATURE OF THE C ASE: CIVIL - TORTS-OTH ER THANPERSONAL INJURY & PROP ERTY DAMAGE DISPOSITION: REVERS ED AND REMANDE D - 05/17/2007 MOTION FOR

REHEARING FILED: MANDATEISSUED: EN BAN C. DICKINSON, JUSTIC E, FOR THE COURT: ¶ 1
. T he ce ntr al i s s ue on appe al i n thi s act i on betw een a doct orand hi s f or m erm edi cal
m al pr act i ce i ns ur eri s venue. T he C hance ry Courtof H ol m es C ounty or i gi nal l y gr ant ed the i ns ur er ’ s m ot i on t o t r ans f ert he cas e t o t he C i r cui tC our tof M adi s on C ounty. Fi ve mont hs l at er , the chanc el l orgr ant ed the doct or ’ s m ot i on t o r econs i derand tr ans f err ed the ca s e t o the C i r cui tC ourto f H ol m es C ount y i ns t ead. T he i s s ue bef or e thi s C our ti s w hether– af t er tr ans f err i ng the ca se t o M adis on C ounty – the cha ncery courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on by2

gr ant i ng the doct or ’ s m ot i on t o r econs i derand tr ans f err i ng the ca s e t o the C i r cui tC our tof H ol m es C ounty. B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶ 2
. M ed ical A ssu ran ce C o m p a n y o f M issi ssipp i ( “M A C M ”) insu red D r. R o n ald V
. M y ers f r om 1998 thr ough 2004, butthe company el ect ed nott o r enew hi s cover age w hen hi s pol i cy
ex p ir ed o n Jan u ary 1 , 2 0 0 5 , u n d er it s o w n term s. O n e rea so n fo r M A C M ’s de cisi o n w as D r. M y e rs’ s re fu sa l to a llo w its R isk M a n a g e m e n t D e p a rtm e n t to c o n d u c t a f u ll rev iew o f h is pr act i ces i n T chul a ( H olm es C ounty) , B el zoni ( H um phr eys C ounty) , G r eenvi l l e ( W as hi ngt on C o u n ty), an d Ind iano la (S u n fl o w er C o u n ty). ¶3. B el i evi ng M A C M ow ed hi m a s t atut ory duty t o r enew hi s pol i cy, D r . M yer s s ued the
c o mp a n y f

o rd a ma g e s a n d p e t i t i o n e d f o ra n i n j u n c t i o n t o f

o r c e i tt o i n s u r e h i m. On D ece m ber8, 2004, D r . M yer s f i l ed hi s compl ai nti n the C hance ry C our tof H ol m es C ounty. O ne w eek l at er , M A C M f i l ed a m ot i on t o di s m i s s f orl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on and, al t ernat i vel y, m oved the courtt o t r ans f erthe ca s e t o the C i r cui tC our tof M adi s on C ount y. ¶4. C hance l l or J anac e H
. G or ee hear d ar gum ent s on the i s s ues of j ur i s di ct i on and venue
o n D ec em b er 1 6 , 2 0 0 4
. T h at sam e d ay , the c h an ce ll o r ru led from th e b en ch th at D r. M y ers’s act i on w as es s ent i al l y a con tr actcl ai m , s o the C hance ry C our tof H ol m es C ounty di d not h a v e su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n . T h e c h a n c e llo r c o n c lu d e d b y s tatin g “ th e C o u rt is g o in g to her eby tr ans f

erthi s cas e t o the C i r cui tC our tof M adi s on C ounty. ” Ther eaf t er , the par t i es agr eed t o pr epar e an or dercons i s t entw i th t hi s rul i ng. T he or der , f i l ed J anuary 27, 2005, i ncorpor at ed the benc h rul i ng in to to .Dr . Mye rs c ho se to a bandon his m oti on

to reo pe n and

pro ceed onlyon

his m oti on

to 1 rec on sider. Th ere fo re, on ly t hem oti on

to reco ns ider is be fo re this Co urt on appe al. 3 ¶5. O n D ece m ber 22, 2004, D r . M yer s f i l ed w i th the chanc ery court a M ot i on t o R eopen and R econs i der
. T he mot i on as ked t he cour tt o r eopen the ca s e f orthe admi s s i on of add i t i on al evidence an d rear gu m ent and t o reconsi der the b ench rul i ng transf err i ng the case t o the C i r cui tC our tof

M adi s on C ounty. O n J anuary 6, 2005, thi s C our tdeci ded Snyderv. L ogan , 905 So. 2d 531 ( M i s s . 2005) , a ca se dea l i ng w i t h perm i s s i bl e venue s f oran ac t i on betw een a n i ns ur ed and heri ns ur erunderthe f or m ervenue s t atut e. D r . M yer s ther eaf t er
a rg u e d in h is F e b ru a ry 7 , 2 0 0 5 , b rie f su p p o rtin g h is m o tio n th a t S nyder r epr es ent ed a c hange i n contr ol l i ng venue l aw and j us t i f i ed the court ’ s r econs i der at i on of the ca s e. ¶6
. O n A p ril 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , the c h a n c e llo r h e ld a h e a rin g o n D r. M y ers ’s m o tio n to
rec o n side r. A ft er tak ing the m att er un d er a d v isem en t, th e ch an ce ll o r gran ted D r. M y ers’s

1
m ot i on t o r econs i derthe i s s ue of venue. T he cha ncel l orf ound thatcr edibl e evi dence
sa tisfa c to rily e sta b lish e d a fa c tu a l b a sis to s u p p o rt D r. M y e rs’ s p re fe re n c e o f v e n u e in Hol me s Cou nty. The or de rc on c l ud e d, “ I T I S TH ER EFO RE OR DER ED A ND AD J UD GED th a t th is c a s e s h a ll b e tr a n s fe rr e d to th e C ir c u it C o u rt o f H o lm e s C o u n ty , M is s is s ip p i.” ¶ 7
. O n M a y 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 , M A C M filed its P e tit io n fo r P e rm iss io n fo r In ter lo c u to ry A p p e a l,
w h ich th is C o u rt g ra n ted . M A C M a rg u e s th a t th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt h a d n o a u th o rity to ent er t ai n a ny mot i on s , i nc l ud i ng a mot i on t o r e c on s i de r , a f t e rrul i ng f

r om t he be nc h a nd enter i ng an o rdertransf

err i ng the case t o the C i rcui tC ou rtof M adis on C ou nty. M A C M al so
a rg u e s th a t v e n u e is p ro p e r in M a d iso n C o u n ty . B e c a u se w e co n c lu d e tha t th e p ro p e r c o u n tyTh e timingof thetrans fer of

juri sdiction

to a tran sf

ere e co urt is a m att er moreappropri ate ly 2 addressed by this Court pursuant to its rule-making authori ty. 4 of venue i n thi s cas e i s M adi s on C ounty, w e nee d not address t he quest i on of w hethert he chanc el l orhad author i ty t o cons i derthe mot i on f orr econs i der at i on. 2 DI S CU S S I ON ¶8
. T he qu e s t i on be f or e us i s w he the r , a f

t e r i t tr a ns f

e rr e d thi s c a s e t o M a di s on Count y, the cha ncery courtabuse d i t s di s cr et i on by gr ant i ng D r . M yer s ’ s m ot i on t o re cons i der , and then tr ans f

err i ng the ca s e t o t he C i r cui tC our tof H ol m es C ounty. R el i ef underMis s is s i

ppiR ul e of

C i vi lP r ocedur e 60(

b) ¶9. M A C M ar gues t he chanc ery cour ter r ed i n gra nt i ng D r . M yer s ’ s m ot i on t o r econs i der beca us e he f

ai l ed t o s at i s f

y the r equi r ement s of

M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e 60( b) f or
r el i ef f r om an or der
. D r . M yer s as s ert s the chanc ery cour tprope r l y ent ert ai ned hi s m ot i on b e c a u se th e c o u rt fa iled to c o n sid e r th e v e n u e iss u e w h e n it tra n sfe rre d th e c a se to th e C irc u it C our tof M adi s on C ount y based o n i t s l ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, and bec aus e the
c h a n c e ry c o u rt ’s ru lin g w a s n o t a “ fi n a l ju d g m e n t, o rd e r o r p ro c e e d in g .” ¶10. R ul e 60( b) governs r el i ef f r om a j udgm ent or or der bas ed on m i s t akes , i nadvert ence , n e w ly d isc o v e re d e v id e n c e , fra u d , an d o th e r sp e c ified c irc u m sta n c e s. It sta tes , in p a rt: O n m o tio n a n d u p o n s u c h ter m s a s a re ju st, th e c o u rt m a y re liev e a p a rty o r h is l egal r epr es ent at i on f

r om a f i nal j udgm ent , or der , orpr ocee di ng f orthe fol l ow i ng reas on s: ( 1) f r aud, m i s r epr es ent at i on, orotherm i s conductof an adve r s e party; ( 2) acc i dentorm i s t ake; ( 3) new l y di s cover ed evi dence w hi ch by due di l i gence coul d nothave been d isco v ere d in ti m e to m o v e fo r a n ew tr ial u n d er R u le 59 (b);5

( 4) the j udgm enti s voi d; ( 5) the j udgm enthas been s at i s f i ed, r el eas ed, or di s char ged, ora pr i or j ud gm ent upon w hich i ti s based has bee n reversed or otherw i se vaca t ed, ori ti s no l ongerequi t abl e thatthe j udg m ents houl d have pr os pect i ve appl i cat i on; (6 ) a n y o th e r re a so n ju stify in g re lief f ro m th e ju d g m e n t. T he mot i on s hal l be made w i thi n a r eas onabl e t i m e, and f orr easons ( 1) , ( 2) and ( 3) notm or e than s i x m onths af t erthe j udgm ent , or der , orpr ocee di ng w as ent er ed ort aken. M iss. R
. C iv. P. 60 (b). ¶1 1. A t r i al c ou r t ’ s gr a nt of r e l i e f un de r M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 60 ( b) i s r e vi e w e d f or abus e of d is c re tio n . R . N

. Tu rnb ow O il

Invs. v. McIntosh , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d 9 6 0 , 9 6 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ). In h is D ece m ber20, 2004, m ot i on t o r econs i der , D r . M yer s s i m pl y as ked the cour tt o r eopen the
cas e f orthe admi s s i on of

addi t i onal evi dence and r ear gum entand t o r econs i deri t s bench
ru l i n g t r a n s f

e r r i n g th e c a s e t o th e Ci r c u i tCo u r to f M a d i s o n Co u n ty . I n h i s b r i e f f i l e d t wo
m onths l at er , D r . M yer s a r gued thata c as e handed dow n by thi s C our ton J anuary 6, 2005, Snyderv. L ogan , 9 0 5 S o . 2 d 5 3 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ), c o n stitu ted a n in ter v e n in g c h a n g e in contr ol l i ng l aw . T hi s basi s forr econs i der at i on does notf i tw i thi n the f

i r s tf i ve enumer at ed
rea so n s for relief u n d er 6 0 (b). A s su ch , this C o u rtm u st de term ine w h ethe r th e tri al co u rt abus ed i t s di s cr et i on by gr ant i ng r el i ef pur s uantt o the ca t chal l cat egory of 60( b) ( 6) , “any otherr eas on j us t i f

yi ng r el i ef

f r om the j udgm ent . ” Si gni f i cant l y, “ [ r ] e l i ef

underR ul e 60( b) ( 6) i s r es erved f

orextr aor di nary and com pel l i ng ci r cumst ance s . ” B rin ey v. U . S. Fid. & G u ar. Co. , 7 1 4 S o . 2 d 9 6 2 , 9 6 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ).6

¶1 2
. A lth o u g h n ev er ex p li cit ly stat ed , the ch an ce ry co u rt ap p are n tl y g ran ted D r. M y ers’s
m ot i on t o r econs i derbeca us e i tdi d nots peci f i cal l y addr es s and ana l yze the i s s ue of venue in its o rig in a l o rd e r tra n sfe rrin g th e c a se to th e C irc u it C o u rt o f M a d iso n C o u n ty . In c o n tra st, the court ’ s M ay 10, 2005, or derdi d i ncl ude fi nd i ngs of f actand conc l us i ons of l aw expl ai ni ng i t s deci s i on t o tr ans f erthe ca s e t o D r . M yer s ’ s or i gi nal venue c hoi ce – H ol m es C ounty. H ow ever , unl es s e xtr aor di nary a nd c om pel l i ng c i r cumst ance s j us t i f i ed the tr ans f

er fr om the C i rcui tC ou rtof M adis on C ou nty t o the C i rcui tC ou rtof H olm es C ou nty, the fi rs t
or dertr ans f

err i ng the ca s e t o t he C i r cui tC our tof M adi s on C ounty m us tbe enf or ced. V e n u e : T h e C irc u it C o u rt o

f H o lm e s C o u n ty ¶ 1 3
. B o th p a rties a g re e th e c irc u it c o u rt, ra th e r th a n th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt, h a s ju risd ictio n in thi s cas e. T he di s put e conc erns w hetherthe C i r cui tC our tof H ol m es C ounty i s a pr oper
v e n u e fo r D r. M y e rs’ s a c tio n . W h ile D r. M y e rs a c k n o w led g e s th a t M a d iso n C o u n ty w o u ld
a lso b e a p erm issi b le ve n u e, he claim s tha t his ch o ice o f ve n u e – H o lm es C o u n ty – sh o u ld be r es pect ed bec aus e “the pl ai nt i f f i s ent i t l ed t o choose bet w een any of the perm i s s i bl e venue opt i ons w her e cr edi bl e evi dence orf act ual ba s i s s uppor t s the venue s el ect ed. ” W al- Mart Stor es, I nc. v. Johnson , 807 So. 2d 382, 387 ( M i s s . 2001)
. M A C M , on the otherhand, cont ends thatM adi s on C ounty i s the onl y pr opervenue gi ven the f act s of thi s cas e. ¶1 4. T hi s C our thas he l d tha t“ [ a ] n a pp l i c a t i on f orc ha ng e o f

v e nu e i s a dd r es s ed t o t he dis cret i on of the t ri al j ud ge, and [ her] ruli ng thereon w i l l no tbe d i sturbed o n ap peal unl ess i tcl ear l y appea r s thatther e has been an abus e of di s cr et i on orthatthe di s cr et i on has notbeen j us t l y a nd p r op e r l y e xe r c i s e d un de rthe c i r c ums t ance s . ” G ui ce v. Mis s . L i f e I ns. Co. , 8367

S o . 2 d 75 6, 758 ( M i ss. 200 3). P ursuantt o M i ss. C od e A nn . Secti on 11-11-3 ( R ev. 20 0 4 ),
ven ue is app ropri at e i n the f oll ow i ng cou nti es: C i vi l act i on s of w hi ch the ci r cui tcourthas or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on s hal l be c o m m e n c e d in th e c o u n ty w h e re th e d e fe n d a n t res id e s, o r, if a c o rp o ra tio n , in the county of

i t s pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s , ori n the county w her e a s ubs t ant i al al l eged a ctorom i s s i on occurr ed orw her e a subs t ant i al eventthat caus ed the i nj ury occurr ed. T he def endantM A C M ha s i t s pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s i n M adi s on C ounty, s o a s ubs t ant i al al l eged a ct , om i s s i on, or i nj ury- caus i ng eventm us thave occurr ed i n H ol m es C ounty t o m ake i ta pr opervenue f

orthi s act i on. ¶15. Si gni f

i cant l y, the Legi s l atur e amended Sect i on 11- 11- 3, ef f ect i ve Sept ember1, 2004, t o s etvenue w her e s ubs t ant i al act s orevent s caus i ng the i nj ury occur r ed , no tw here the cau se of act i on accr ued , as w a s p e rm iss ib le u n d e r th e fo rm e r sta tu te. S in c e D r. M y e rs f iled h is
a c tio n o n D e c e m b e r 8 , 2 0 0 4 , th e cu rre n t statu te, q u o ted ab o v e , c o n tro ls th e d isp o sitio n o f th is
c a s e . ¶ 1 6
. G iv e n th is f

o u n d a tio n , w e m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng t hatcr edi bl e evi dence support ed D r . M yer s ’ s pos i t i on thata s ubs t ant i al act , om i s s i on, ori nj ury- caus i ng e vent( ors ubs t ant i al c om ponentther eof ) oc curr ed i n H ol m es C o u n ty. I f no b asis ex ist s for su ch a find ing , then the c h an ce ll o r’s de cisi o n g ran ti n g D r. M yer s ’ s M ot i on t o R econs i derm us tbe r ever s ed, and the or i gi nal j udgm enttr ans f err i ng t he
cas e t o the C i r cui tC our tof M adi s on C ounty m us tbe r ei ns t at ed. 1. W het her Sny de rv. Loga n changed cont rol l i ng venue l aw ¶ 1 7
. C o n tr a ry to D r . M y e r s ’ s c la im s , S nyder di d notr epr es enta cha nge i n contr ol l i ng
v e n u e law . In th a t ca se , the p lain tiff, S n y d e r, p u rc h a se d a u to in su ra n c e fro m th e d e fe n d a n ts8

i n D ece m ber2000, butt he po l i cy w as canc el l ed i n D ece m ber2001 f orf ai l ur e t o pay the pr emi um s . 905 S o. 2d at532. Snyderpai d t he r eques t ed amountand w as i nf or m ed thats he
w o u ld b e c o v e re d f

ro m J a n u a ry 7 , 2 0 0 2 , th ro u g h F e b ru a ry 7 , 2 0 0 2
. I d. O n J anuary 8, 2002, Snyderw as i nvol ved i n a s i ngl e- caracc i dent
. W hen the def endant s den i ed hercl ai m , s he f i l ed s ui ti n J ef

f er s on C ount y C i r cui tC our tf orm i s r epr es ent at i on, negl i gence, br eac h of
c o n tr a c t, a n d b a d fa ith
. I d. ¶ 1 8
. T h e tr ia l c o u rt f o u n d v e n u e to b e a p p ro p ria te w h e re S n y d e r p u rc h a se d h e r a u to in su ra n c e (A d a m s C o u n ty ), w h e re o n e d e fe n d a n t ha d a re g iste re d a g e n t fo r p ro c e ss (R a n k in C ounty) , and w her e the pl ai nt i f f conduct ed bus i nes s w i th anotherdefendant( W arr en C o u n ty ), b u t n o t in J e ff

e rs o n C o u n ty . I

d. I nt erpr et i ng the f

or m ervenue s t atut e, and r el yi ng
on Stubbs v. Mis s is s i

ppiFar m B ure au Cas ualt y I nsur ance Co. , 825 So. 2d 8, 13 (M i ss. 2 0 0 2 ), th e C o u rt fo u n d th a t th e p lain tiff’ s a c tio n a g a in st h e r in su re r c o u ld b e b ro u g h t in J e ff e rs o n C o u n ty b e c a u s e th e c a r a c c id e n t o c c u rr e d th e re . Snyder , 905 So. 2d at534. ¶ 1 9
. T he de c i s i on d i d no tb r e a k a ny n e w g r ou nd, but m er el y r el i ed on pr i or pr onouncement s of

thi s C our tr egar di ng the f orm erve nue s t atut e. I t s pos i t i on thatan ac t i on coul d be pr oper l y f

i l ed i n m ul t i pl e venue s , i ncl udi ng w her e a s ubs t ant i al al l eged a ctor i nj ury- caus i ng eventoccurr ed, w as anythi ng butnovel
. The r at i onal e of the C our tadvanc ed i n S nyder w as the s ame r eas oni ng pr opounded by the C our ti n cas es deci ded bef or e the chanc ery courtrul ed t o t r ans f erD r . M yer s ’ s cas e. 2. W het her t he chancel l or’ s f i ndi ngs s upp ort t he venue changeDr . Mye rs’ s suit agains t MA CMis f or f ail ingto ren ewhis po lic y, no t f or c an cel lin g it
. 3 This appears to be a misstat ement by the chancery court . The non-renewal not ice was sent 4 by MACM from

Madison County to Dr. Mye rs in Holmes County. 9 ¶2 0. I n i t s O r derG r ant i ng R econs i de r a t i on o f Venu e , the c hance r y cour tm ade t he f ol l owi ng f

i nd i ng s of

f a c tj us t i f yi ng tr ans f

erof the ca s e t o the C i r cui tC ourtof H ol m es C ounty: ( 1) M ye r s c om pl et ed hi s appl i cat i on t o [ M A C M ] f ort he m al pr act i ce in su ra n c e in H o lm e s, C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. ( 2) M A C M i s s ued the pol i cy f r om M adis on C ount y t o M yer s i n H ol m es C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. ( 3) T he s econd quar t er of prem i um w as pai d by M yer s t o M A C M f r om H ol m es C ount y and mai l ed t o M A C M i n M adi s on C ounty. (4 ) T h e re w e re d isc u ss io n s b e tw e e n M y e rs a n d M A C M in 2 0 0 4 , b y m a il an d pr ob a bl y by t e l e ph on e , f r om a nd b e tw e e n H ol mes Coun ty a nd M adis on C ount y abouti ns ur ance cover age on a cl i ni c i n T upl eo [ sic ] th a tw a s u l t i m a t e l y e x c l u d e d f r o m c o v e r a g e b y MA C M. (5 ) T h e re w e re m u ltip le w ri tte n c o m m u n ica tio n s to a n d fro m M y e rs in H ol m es C ounty a nd t o a nd f r om M A C M i n M adi s on C ounty pert ai ni ng t o a revi ew by M A C M R i sk M anag em ent C om m i t t ee atvari ou s M yers’ c lin ics , inc lu d in g th e c lin ic in H o lm e s C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. ( 6) T he l et t eradvi s i ng M yer s t hathi s mal pr a c t i c e i ns ur a nc e had been canc el l ed w as s entby U
. S. M ai l i n T chul a, H ol m es C ounty,

[ 3] M i s s i s s i ppi , and r ece i ved by hi m i n T chul a, H ol m es C ounty, M iss iss ip p i. [ 4] ( 7) O ne of

the cl i ni cs oper at ed by M yer s and i ns ur ed by M A C M i s l ocat ed in T c h u la, H o lm e s C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. (8 ) M y e rs s e lec ted H o lm e s C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i to file h is la w su it. ¶21. A s s t at ed above , the venue s t atute perm i t s a ca se t o be fi l ed w her e a s ubs t ant i al al l eged a ct , om i s s i on, ori nj ury- caus i ng eventoc curr ed. T her ef or e, e ven i f

an ac torom i s s i on di d notcaus e the i nj ury, i tcan ne verthel es s es t abl i s h venue if iti s both s ubs tant i aland10

al l eged by the pl ai nt i f

f
. D r . M yer s ’ s compl ai ntdoes notal l ege thathi s deci s i on nott o gi ve M A C M ’ s r i s k m anage m entt eam f ul l acc es s t o hi s pr act i ce, i ncl udi ng hi s pr act i ce i n H ol m es C ounty, contr i but ed t o hi s cl ai m . T hus , thatf act– even i f

true – does notm eetthe “a l l eged” p o rtio n o f th e tes t. ¶ 2 2
. N e x t, w e n o te th a t t h e b a s is fo r D r. M y e rs’ s a c tio n w a s M A C M ’s d e c isio n n o t to
r enew hi s cover age onc e i texpi r ed on J anu ar y 1, 2005, underi t s ow n t erm s . W i th r es pect t o es t abl i s hi ng D r . M yer s ’ s caus e of act i on and cl ai m s of

w r ongf ul conduct , w e f

i nd l i t t l e or
no r el evanc e t o the part i cul ar pl ace he c om pl et ed hi s appl i cat i on orm ai l ed hi s pr emi um p a y m e n ts. D r. M y e rs is n o t cla im in g tha t M A C M reje c ted h is a p p lica tio n o r d e c id e d n o t to
r enew hi s pol i cy f

orf ai l ur e t o pa y pr emi um s . C om pl et i ng a n a ppl i cat i on i n, and m aking payment s f

r om , H ol m es C ounty cannotbe cons i der ed s ubs t ant i al act s ori nj ury- caus i ng event s i n thi s cas e. ¶23. A ddi t i onal l y, the chanc ery c our t ’ s f i ndi ng of com m un i cat i on s “f

rom and betw een H ol m es C ount y and M adi s on C ounty” and “ t o and f r om M yer s i n H ol m es C ounty and t o and f r o m M AC M i n M a d i s o n Co u n ty ” i s a n i n s u f f i c i e n tb a s i s f

o re s t a b l i s h i n g v e n u e . M ACM
nev er com m un i cat ed to D r. M yers f rom H olm es C ou nty, and al l of M A C M ’s deli berat i on s,
m ee ti n g s, co rresp o n d en ce , a n d c o m m u n icati o n w ith D r. M y ers o cc u rred in o r w ere tra n sm itt e d fro m its o ffic e s in M a d iso n C o u n ty . M A C M n e v e r m e t w ith D r. M y e rs in H o lm e s C o u n ty , b u t th e p a rties d id m e e t in M a d iso n C o u n ty . In o th e r w o rd s, D r. M y e rs is
su in g M A C M b a se d o n th e c o m p a n y ’s o w n a c ts o r o m iss io n s, a ll o f w h ich o c c u rre d in M adi s on C ounty.11

¶24. T he l ocat i on of

the m ai l box w her e D r . M yer s re cei ved hi s pol i cy, non- r enew al not i ce, or ot her com m un i cat i on s f rom M A C M i s l i kew i se i m m at eri al
. A s M A C M properl y n otes , “D r . M yer s ’ s r ece i ptof

i nf or m at i on i n H ol m es C ounty i s a pa s s i ve f unct i on of

hi s pr es ence there and i s not a s ub st anti al even tcausi ng the d am ages he cl ai m s. ” A l on g tho se sam e l i nes, D r. M yers i s no tclai m i ng t hat hi s ow n acti on s or com m un i cat i on s contr i bu t ed to hi s i njur i es,
s o w her e he per f

or m ed thos e ac t i ons orf r om w her e he made thos e comm uni cat i ons does not i m pactthi s C our t ’ s venue a nal ys i s . Si nce i ti s M A C M ’ s de ci s i on nott o r enew the i ns ur ance pol i cy thati s the al l eged c aus e of D r . M yer s ’ s i nj ur i es , every s ubs t ant i al act , om i s s i on, or i nj ury- caus i ng eventoccurr ed i n M adi s on C ounty. ¶ 2 5
. F in a lly , D r . M y e r s a r g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e h e o p e ra te d a c lin ic in H o lm e s C o u n ty , a
su b sta n tial in

ju ry -c a u sin g e v e n t occur r ed oraccr ued i n H ol m es C ounty. H ow ever , under the amended s t atut e, venue i s no l ongersetby w her e a caus e of act i on accrued. E ven though D r. M y e rs c laim s h e w a s d a m a g e d w h e n h e e x p e rie n c e d b e in g u n in su re d in H o lm e s C o u n ty (and in H um phr eys , W as hi ngt on, and Sunf l ow ercount i es ) , thi s coul d be the re su lt of
su b sta n ti al ac ts, o m issi o n s, o r i n jury -ca u sing ev en ts w h ich o cc u rred in M ad ison C o u n ty al one. Fol l ow i ng D r . M yer s ’ s l ogi c, a pl ai nt i f f i nj ur ed i n an aut om obi l e ac ci denti n M adi s on C ounty coul d es t abl i s h venue i n every county i n w hi ch the p l ai nti f f tr avel ed s i m pl y by
s h o w in g th a t, in e a c h c o u n ty , h is o r h e r i n ju ri e s w o rs e n e d
. ¶2 6
. T h e v en u e statu te d o es n o t all o w the “p il ing ” o f ac ts o r ev en ts to estab li sh v en u e. It
s peci f i cal l y r equi r es a s ubs t ant i al a l l eged act , omi s s i on, ori nj ury- caus i ng e ventt o h ave 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 n A m er i can Ho m e P ro d u c ts Co rp . v. S u m lin , 94 2 S o. 2d 7 66 (M i ss. 2 00 6), the p l ai nti ff fi l ed suitagainst12

a pharm ace ut i cal company f ori nj ur i es s us t ai ned f

r om t aki ng R edux. T he pl ai nt i f f obt ai ned th e p re s c ri p tio n , fille d it, a n d in g e s te d th e p ills in W a y n e C o u n ty . I d. at771. H ow ever , s he f i l ed s ui ti n Sm i th C ount y becaus e t he echoc ar di ogr am r evea l i ng heri nj ur i es w as per f or m ed th e re . I d. W hetherthe t es tw as pr oper l y per f or m ed w as a maj orpoi ntof cont ent i on betw een th e p a rt ie s . I

d. at769. N everthel es s , t hi s C our thel d t hatvenue w as onl y pr operi n W ayne C ounty, s ayi ng “the per f or m ance and i nt erpr et at i on o f a n echoc ar di ogr am, al one, i s not
s uf f i ci ents o as t o cons t i tut e a ‘ s ubs t ant i al component ’ of thi s cl ai m . L i kew i s e, any emot i onal di s tr es s orps ychol ogi cal pai n r es ul t i ng f r om the f i ndi ngs of

an echoca r di ogr am does notc ons t i tut e a s ubs t ant i al c om ponentof t he clai m . ” I

d. at771 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons
o m itted). T h u s, the p erfo rm an ce o f an ec h o ca rdio g ram o r th e p lace w h ere the p lai n ti ff exper i ence d heri nj ur i es w as not“s ubs t ant i al ” enough t o es t abl i s h venue i n a part i cul ar
c o u n ty . T h e sa m e is tru e o f th e re c e ip t o f c o rre sp o n d e n c e , th e lo c a tio n o f a sin g le c lin ic in a mul t i
- cl i ni c oper at i on, orthe pl ace w her e D r . M yer s “expe r i ence d” bei ng uni ns ur ed. ¶2 7. W e concl ud e the c ha nc e r y c ou r t a bu s e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n f i nd i ng c r e di bl e evi dence
s uppor t ed tr ans f

erof the cas e t o the C i r cui tCourtof H ol m es Count y. M adi s on C ounty w as th e c o u n ty o f p ro p e r v e n u e u n d e r S e c tio n 1 1 -1 1 -3 , a n d th e c h a n c e llo r’s o rig in a l d e c isio n to tr an sfer the ca se th ere w as c o rre c t. T h ere fore , the c h an ce ry c o u rtim p rop erly g ran ted D r. M yer s ’ s m ot i on t o re cons i deri t s ori gi nal o r dert r ans f err i ng t he ca s e t o the C i r cui tC our tof M adi s on Coun ty, a s the r e wer e n o e xtr a or di na ry c i r c ums t a nc e s c ompe l l i ng r e l i e f f r om t he
o ri g inal o rde r. CO NC L US I ON13

¶28. Forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed her ei n, w e r ever se t he chan cery co urt ’ s O r der G r ant i ng R econ si derat i on of V enu e, r ei nst at e t he ch ancery co urt ’s ori ginal order transf err i ng the case t o the C i r cui tC our tof M adi s on C ounty, and r emand t he ca s e f orf ur therpr ocee di ngs
cons i s t entw i th i t s opi ni on. ¶ 2 9
. REVERSED AND REM AND ED
. S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R , P .J ., E A S L E Y , C A R L S O N A N D R A N D O L P H , J J ., CONCUR. DI AZ , P . J . , DI S S EN TS W I TH S EP ARA TE W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. GR AV E S , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶30. B eca us e the m aj or i ty t oday decl i nes t o addr es s the cr i t i cal i s s ue at hand i n thi s cas e, I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. T h e th re sh o ld iss u e th a t m u st b e d e c id e d b e fo re a n y o th e r is
w hetherthe cha ncery courtr et ai ned the j ur i s di ct i on t o r econs i derthe mot i on t o tr ans f er venue af t erpre vi ous l y orde r i ng t he t r ans f er . I ns t ead of

deci di ng thi s poi nt , the maj or i ty l eaps ahea d of i t s el f

and conc l udes thatvenue i s pr oper . I n m y vi ew , thi s i s s ue mustaddr es s ed first, a n d w e p ro v id e n o g u id a n c e to th e B e n c h a n d B a r b y ig n o rin g it. ¶3 1
. T h ere is o n ly o n e p rac ti ca l m etho d for d eterm ining at w h at p o int a tr an sferri n g co u rt lo se s ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r a c a se a fte r g ra n tin g a m o tio n to c h a n g e v e n u e . S im p ly , the fu ll tr ans ferof

a ca s e s houl d notbe ef f ect ed unt i l af

t era mot i on f

orr econs i der at i on has been gr ant ed ordeni ed by a tr i al court( as s um i ng, of cour s e, thaton e is fi l ed). T hi s br i ght
- l i ne
m ethod avoi ds the nee dl es s compl i cat i ons thathave a r i s en i n otherj ur i s di ct i ons and p rese rve s u n if

o rm ity w ith o ther m o ti o n s. Ju st as w e w il l n o t fin d erro r w ith a tri al co u rt
r egar di ng i s s ues ne verpr es ent ed t o i tf orc ons i der at i on, w e s houl d notf i nd err orw hen a tr i al
c o u rt h a s n e v e r h a d th e o p p o rt u n ity to c o rr e c t its e lf
. See Mill

s v . N ich o ls , 467 So. 2d 924,14

9 3 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ). O th e r m e th o d s th a t in v o lv e im m e d iate tra n sfe rs fro m c o u rt to c o u rt w o u ld
s quanderj udi ci al r es our ces and sl ow t he pas s age of j us t i ce. I tgoes w i thoutsayi ng t hatthe tr i al courtw hi ch rul ed on the or i gi nal mot i on i s i n the bes tpos i t i on t o adj udi cat e i f a mot i on for rec o n side ra tio n is w o rth y o f de li b era ti o n o r si m p ly a re p ea t of th e a rgu m en ts th e c o u rt h as a lr ea d y co n side red
. T h e o ri g inal co u rtca n b est sep ara te th e w h ea t f rom the c h aff. ¶32. T he m aj or i ty al s o m i s pl ace s i t s analysi s of m ot i ons t o r econs i der upon M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l P r ocedur e 60( b)
. T he t r i al cour trul ed verbal l y on D ece m ber16, 2004, and the
m ot i on t o r econs i derw as fi l ed on D ece m ber22. B eca us e t he m ot i on t o r econs i derw as f i l ed le s s th a n t e n d a y s a ft e r t h e ru lin g , it w a s fi le d p u rs u a n t to R u le 5 9
. See M R C P 5 9 (e); Cannon v. Cannon , 571 So. 2d 976, 978 ( M i s s . 1990) ( i f a “mot i on w as f

i l ed more t han t en d a y s a fte r th e e n try o f th e fin a l ju d g m e n t . . . [th e ] a p p e a l ca n n o t b e c o n sid e re d u n d e r R u le 5 9 ” ); B r es lerv. B r es ler , 824 So. 2d 641, 642 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2002) ( m ot i ons t o r econs i der
w il l be trea ted “ as a R u le 5 9 m o ti o n [w h en ] fi led w ith in ten d ay s after th e jud g m en t”);
c ompar e M R C P 60, w hi ch f ocus es excl us i vel y on m i s t akes , i nadvert ence , f r aud, ornew evi dence, an d w hich al l ow s s i x m onths ’ t i m e t o f i l e a mot i on. Fora di s cus s i on of t he di f f er ence s bet w een the rul es , s ee B r uce v. B r uce , 587 So. 2d 898, 903 ( M i s s . 1991) , w hi ch
m akes cl earthat“R ul e 60( b) i s f orextr aor di nary ci r cumst ance s , form att er s col l at er al t o the
m er i t s , and af

f or ds a much narr ow err ange of r el i ef than R ul e 59( e)
. ” ¶33
. B ecaus e t oday the maj or i ty f or goes provi ding pract i cal gu i dan ce t o o ur tri al court s and pr act i t i on er s on thi s s t i cky pr ocedur al i s s ue, and bec aus e i tm i s appr ehends the pr oces s by
w h ich a m o tio n to re c o n sid e r is file d , I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t.