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 5 - CA- 0 1 3 5 3 - S CT CORTNEY J

O AS HM ORE Mc CORD
v. HEA L THCARE RECOVE RI ES , I NC . AN

D T RA VEL ER SI

NS URAN CE COM

P AN Y
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 03/ 2005 TR I A L J U D G E: H O N
. J A CQ U ELI N E EST ES M A SK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LE E COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANT: ROY O. P ARKER ROY O. P ARKER, J R. ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEES : M I CH AEL D AV I D TA PS CO TT C L IF F O R D K A V A N A U G H B A IL E Y , III NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - I NSURANCE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 05/ 10/ 2007 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. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A f

t eran evi dent i ary hear i ng, the L ee C ounty C hance ry C our t , C hance l l or J acque l i ne E st es M ask, presi ding, found t hat Traveler s I nsurance C om pan y and H eal thcare R ecov eri es, I nc. , w er e notl i abl e t o Courtney J o A s hm or e M cC or d f orda m ages f

ora l l eged t ort i ous interferen ce w ith the se tt lem en t of a m ino r’s p erso n al injury c lai m . F rom this c h an ce ry c o u rt j u d g me n t , Co u r tn e y J o As h mo r e M c Co r d a p p e a l s t o u s . F i n d i n g n o e rr o r , we a f f i r m.M any of the f act s ar e gl eane d f

r om C hance l l orM ask’ s very thor ough 29- page 1 O p in io n a n d J u d g m e n t e n te re d s u b s e q u e n t to a tw o -d a y e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . 

### Courtney wa s f

ourt ee n years old at t

he tim e of her inj ury. Today, she is mar ri ed, and 2 

### her last n ame is McC ord . Co urtn ey’s mo ther, B ettyA shmo re Mask(no relationto Ch ancello r Mask), was o rigin ally a p arty to the su it; ho wev er, Bettywas d ismissed as a p arty when Courtne y cameof a ge. For c lari ty, we wi llre fe r t o theplaintif f/ petitione r a s Cour

tne y, eve n though during Cour tne y’s minori ty, her

mot her , Be tty, w as acting on Cour tne y’s beha lf
. The c orr ec t s pellin g is “ Cortney. ” Howe ver , s inc e the incor re ct spe ll ing wa s us ed 3 

### throughout t

he tri al , “ Court

ney”wil l beuse d for

cons is te ncy. 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE DURE S I N T HE T RI AL COURT 1 ¶ 2
. O n Ju ly 2 , 1 9 9 5 , C o u rtn e y Jo A sh m o re (C o u rtn e y ) w a s in ju re d w h ile rid in g a n a ll- 2 3 t err ai n vehi cl e w i th herf emal e cous i n on a gr avel roa d i n Pr ent i s s C ounty. C our tney s truck
a w ire c a b le w h ich h a d b e e n stru n g a c ro ss th e ro a d b y a n a d jac e n t lan d o w n e r in o rd e r to d e ter p a ss a g e . W h e n th e c a b le c a u g h t C o u rtn e y a c ro ss th e n e c k , sh e w a s th ro w n v io len tly f r om the vehi cl e. C our tney w as tr ans por t ed on an othe rvehi cl e t o a nea rby r es i dence , and f r om ther e, she w as tr ans por t ed t o the hos pi t al
. T he medi cal exami nat i on atthe hos pi t al
r evea l ed thatC our tney had s uf f er ed s ever e i nj ur i es , i ncl udi ng a nec k f r actur e, and C our tney thereaft er w as r equ i red t o h ave m ult i ple s urgeri es and tr eat m ents . ¶3. O n the dat e of the acc i dent , C our tney, as a depende nt of her s t ep- f at her, M i chae l M as k, w as cover ed undera hea l th pl an pr ovi ded by t he Tennes s ee V al l ey R egi onal H ous i ng A uthor i ty (TV R H A )
. M i chae l M as k w as an em pl oyee of T V R H A
. B enef

i t s w er e pai d under a gr oup pol i cy i s s ued by Tra vel er s I ns ur ance C om pany ( T r avel er s) to T V R H A
. C our tney in c u rr e d m e d ica l ex p e n se s in th e a m o u n t o f $ 3 1 ,9 0 4 .4 5 , o f w h ich $ 2 6 ,2 2 2 .7 9 w a s p a id pur s uantt o t he TV R H A pl an.

### 3

¶4. W e mom ent ar i l y di gr es s t o pr ov i de here cert ai n i nform at i on conce rni ng the pr eacc i dentact i vi t i es of

cer t ai n corpor at e ent i t i es i nvol ved i n var yi ng degr ees w i th t oday’ s cas e. Pr i ort o t he subj ectacci dent , T r avel er s and M etr opol i t an L i f e I ns ur ance C om pany ( M et L i f e)
s ol d thei rm edi cal i nsurance bus i nes s es t o M etr aH eal th C om pani es , I nc. ( M etr aH eal th) on J anuary 1, 1995. A s a partof thi s t rans act i on, T r avel er s r ece i ved appr oxi m at el y 48% of M e tra H e a lth ’s o u tsta n d in g c a p ital sto c k . O n O c to b e r 3 , 1 9 9 5 , T ra v e le rs s o ld a ll o f its M e tra H e a lth sto c k to U n ited H e a lth c a re C o rp o ra tio n (U H C ). A little m o re th a n a m o n th l at er , U H C ent er ed i nt o an agreem entw i th H eal thcar e R ecove r i es , I nc. ( H R I ) t o ut i l i ze H R I ’ s s ervi ces on behal f of i t s ow ned and managed pl ans , w hi ch incl ud ed t hos e pl ans
m anage d by M etr aH eal th. H R I oper at ed as a r ecove ry s ervi ce f orhealthcare i ns ur ance payor s t o i dent i f

y thos e s i tuat i ons w hi ch m i ghtge ner at e pot ent i al s ubr ogat i on cl ai m s . I n her
o p in io n , C h a n c e llo r M a sk a d d e d fo o tn o te 5 to fu rth e r e x p lain th is a g re e m e n t: P a ra g ra p h 5 (a ) o f th e a g re e m e n t sta tes th a t H R I w ill fo llo w a p p lica b le la w in per f or m i ng s ervi ces on behal f of [ U H C ]
. . . Fur ther , pur s uantt o Par agr aph 7( c) , [ U H C ] w as r es pons i bl e f ort he “corr ectnes s , com pl et enes s and acc ur acy of the dat a s ubm i t t ed t o H R I
. ” The contr actl i kew i s e cont ai ns i ndemni f i cat i on pr ovi s i ons betw een H R I and [ U H C ]
. H ow ever , no cr os s - cl ai m s have be en fi l ed b y H R I orT ravel ers . ¶5. T hus , i n the mi ds tof al l of thi s i nt er - corpor at e act i vi ty, B etty A s hm or e M as k, ( B etty) fo u n d h e rse lf in n e e d o f le g a l re p re se n tatio n o n b e h a lf o f h e r m in o r c h ild , C o u rtn e y . B e tty h ir e d a law y e r in an eff o rt t o rec o v e r d a m a g e s fo r C o u rtn e y ’s in ju rie s. In d u e co u rs e , a per s onal i nj ury c l ai m w as a s s ert ed agai ns tJ os eph R i char d A rnol d, the adj ace ntl andow ner
w h o h ad s tru n g the w ir e c ab le ac ross the ro ad
. A rno ld w as in su red b y M issi ssipp i Fa rm

### 4

B u rea u M u tual Insu ran ce C o m p an y (F arm B u rea u ). W e n o w q u o te from C h an ce ll o r M ask ’s opi ni on: T he al l eged ba s i s f

orthi s s ui tl i es w i thi n the ens ui ng com m uni cat i ons and excha nge of

i nf or m at i on betw een the above ent i t i es and couns el f orC our tney, w h ic h th e C o u rt s u m m a ri z e s in c h ro n o lo g ic a l o rd e r b e lo w . O n D ec em b er 1 2 , 1 9 9 5 , co u n sel for C o u rtn ey sen t a l ett er to M etraH e a lth advi s i ng of

hi s r epr es ent at i on of

herand r eques t i ng copi es of any of her m edi cal bi l l s w hi ch had be en pai d by M etr aH eal th. M etr aH eal th r ef

err ed the ca s e t o H R I f

orpos s i bl e col l ect i on i n February 1996. O n M ar ch 15, 1996, couns el f orC our tney s enta l ett ert o H R I f orw ar di ng “M etr aH eal th document s , ” and r eques t i ng thatH R I “l et[ hi m ] know aboutthe a m o u n t o f [its] su b ro g a tio n lien .” T h e re is n o b a sis in e v id e n c e fo r th is s t a t e me n tb y c o u n s e l f o rCo u r tn e y , u n l e s s th e a t t o rn e y ma d e t h e s a me as s um pt i on as H R I, m or e part i cul ar l y des cr i bed bel ow , thata s ubr ogat i on c l a i m e x i s t e d i n s o me f

o r m. O n M ar ch 26, 1996, T i m othy J. P art i n (he r ei naf t er“Par t i n”) , an empl oyee of H R I , f orw ar ded a l ett ert o couns el f orC our tney w hi ch s t at ed that T he contr actbe tw een the H eal th Pl an and yourcl i entpr ovi des thatthe H eal th Pl an has s ubr ogat i on and/ orr ecove ry r i ght s as an in su re r. In th is c o n n e c tio n , the H e a lth P lan a lso h a s th e rig h t to be r ei m bur s ed by yourc l i entf ori t s c os t s of

pr ovi di ng m edi cal car e i n the eve ntt hatany compensat i on is r ece i ved by your cl i ent . T he contr actal s o r equi r es the f ul l cooper at i on of

your cl i enti n t he H eal th Pl an’ s ef f or t s t o obt ai n a r ecove ry. T he C our tr evi ew ed the vi deo of Par t i n’ s depos i t i on and the tr ans cr i ptof the s ame, . . . an d ob ser ved t hatPar t i n expl ai ned thatatthe t i m e he s entthe f or egoi ng l ett erhe ha d noti n f actpe r s onal l y r evi ew ed the pol i cy t o det erm i ne w hetheri tcont ai ned any s ubr ogat i on l anguage . Par t i n f ur therexpl ai ned that h e re lied o n in fo rm a tio n c o n c e rn in g th e p o licy w h ic h h a d b e e n p ro v id e d to hi m f r om an uni dent i f

i ed s our ce, butw hi ch coul d have be en pr ovi ded by the c lien t se rv ice s o ffic e o f H R I. In ter e stin g ly , P a rtin e lab o ra ted th a t w h e n a file i s r ef err ed t o a col l ect oratH R I , i tw oul d be uncust om ary fort hem t o r evi ew the pl an l anguage , and that“eve ry t i m e you pul l up a f i l e you don’ trun t o l ook atthe l anguage . ” H e al s o expl ai ned thatthe above des cr i bed l ett eri s typi cal of w hati s s entby H R I t o an i ns ur ed’ s att orney. Part i n a l s o acknow l edged that

### 5

th e lan g u a g e o f h is le tter c o u ld c o n stitu te a m isre p re se n tatio n . H o w e v e r, P a rtin vi ew ed the l ett eras an i ni t i al att empt t o gatheri nf or m at i on r egar di ng the ca s e, and vi ew ed the meani ng of “r i ght s of r ecove ry” t o i ncl ude more than w hat w oul d be t erm ed contr actual s ubr ogat i on i n thi s St at e. A n exce rptof

H R I ’ s l egal m anual on M i s s i s s i ppi s ubr ogat i on l a w w a s r e c e i ve d [in to e v id e n c e ]; h o w e v e r, th e ex c e rp t refle c ts H R I’s v iew o n th e law a s o f Ju ly 1 9 9 9 , a n d n o tth e v e r s i o n u t i l i z e d d u r i n g th e p e r i o d u n d e rc o n s i d e r a t i o n . An exce rptof

tr ai ni ng m at er i al s us ed by H R I on thi s subj ecti n J anuary 1997 w as al s o r e c e i ve d [ i nt o e vi de nc e ]
. Bot h s e t s o f mat e r i a l s i mpl y s t a t e t hat “M i s s i s s i ppi r ecogni zes both equi t able a nd contr actual s ubr ogat i on” and n e ith e r e la b o ra te s o n th e n a tu re o f e ith e r t h e o ri e s o f r e c o v e ry . O n M ay 3, 1996, S t eve Pope ( her ei naf t er“Pope”) , t he exami nerf orH R I w ho w a s a ss ig n e d to C o u rtn e y ’s c a se , se n t a le tte r to c o u n se l fo r C o u rtn e y w ith copi es of the t ot al benef

i t s pai d by the pl an t o t hatdat e . . . Pope al s o advi s ed, “U pon s ett l ement , pl eas e i ncl ude ourf i l e numberon the che ck and i ncl ude the a d m it tanc e ad v ise be low
. ” T h e statem en t o f ben efit s w h ich w as attach e d to the lett er instruc ted th at ch ec k s w ere to b e m ad e p ay ab le t o H R I. O n J une 18, 1996, Pope s enta l ett ert o c ouns el f orC our tney w hi ch pr ovi ded an updat ed s t at ementof benef i t s pai d f orher
. T hi s l ett eri s i n t he s ame f or m at as the l ett er. . . des cri bed above , and i ncl uded the s ame l anguage r egar di ng rem itti n g p ay m en t t o H R I. I ti s unc ert ai n a tw hatpoi ntc ouns el f orC our tney r ece i ved a c opy of the Pl an De s c r i p t i o n f

o rT VR HA. O n Sept ember26, 1996, couns el f orC our tney w r ot e a l ett ert o Pope, “r eques t i ng a copy of

the pol i cy of

i ns ur ance or otherdocument at i on of e n title m e n t to s u b ro g a tio n .” O n O ct ober2 , 1 996, Pope f axed a m emo t o J i m R hodes ( her ei naf t er “R hodes ”) , adj us t erf

orFar m B urea u, advi s i ng thatH R I m ai nt ai ned a subr ogat i on l i en i n the amountof $26, 222. 79, and r eques t i ng thatH R I be pl ace d on t he s ett l ementchec k as a paye e. By l e t t e rda t e d Oc t o b e r4 , 1 9 9 6 , P o p e a d v i s e d F a r m Bu r e a u th a tHRI “pr ovi des s ubr ogat i on a nd/ orr ecove ry s ervi ces ” f orCourtney’ s pl an, and expl ai ned that“[ t ] he purpos e of thi s l ett eri s t o s erve as the pl an’ s f or m al n o tice o f its c o n tra c tu a l su b ro g a tio n a n d /o r its re c o v e ry rig h ts a s s e t fo rth in its c o n tr a c t w ith its in s u re d .”

### This ac ti on by Far m Burea u’s couns elwas ba se d on thi s Court ’s de ci si on in Cooper 4 

### Tire & Rubber Co. v. Striplin , 6 52 S o. 2d 1102, 1104 ( Mis s. 1995) (par ent s c ould not ef fe ctive ly a ss ign s ubrogati on ri ghts to pro ceeds t o whic h only t heir m inor

chi ld wa s entitle d). 6 ( T he cha ncel l or ’ s r ef

er ence s t o tr i al e xhi bi t s a r e omi t t ed f r om the quot ed l anguage f r om t he
c h a n c e llo r’ s o p in io n .) ¶6
. C o n ti n u ing w ith a su m m ary o f the fac ts set o u t in C h an ce ll o r M ask ’s o p inion , F arm B ur e a u’ s c ou ns e l , b y l e t t e rd a t e d D e c e mber6 , 1 99 6, r e qu e s t e d tha tthe c ha nc el l orbe i nf or m ed of H R I ’ s pot ent i al s ubr ogat i on r i ght s atthe t i m e of an y heari ng on a pet i t i on f or appr oval of

the mi nor ’ s s ett l ement . L i kew i s e, on D ece m ber6, 1996, a r epr es ent at i ve f r om 4 H R I f axed Courtney’ s l aw yera purpor t ed copy of a page f r om the appl i cabl e i ns ur ance pol i cy document i ng the f actthatH R I w as ent i t l ed t o s ubr ogat i on as t o t he medi cal expens es
o f $ 2 6 ,2 2 2 .7 9 ; h o w e v e r, as it tu rn e d o u t, th e fa x e d p a g e w a s n o t a p a rt o f th e a p p lica b le p o l i c y o rp l a n wh i c h h a d p a i d Co u r tn e y ’ s me d i c a l e x p e n s e s . I n f a c t , i n d u e c o u r s e , HRI admi t t ed that , atthe t i m e of the ac ci dent , i tdi d noth old a m edi cal i ns ur ance pol i cy
con t ai ning an e xp res s r eservati on o f s ub rogat i on ri gh t s on C ou rtney ’s m edical exp enses. T her eaf t er , on D ece m ber26, 1996, Pope, on behal f of H R I , i nf or m ed C our tney’ s l aw yerby phone thathe had pr evi ous l y i nadvert ent l y forw ar ded i ncorr ecti nf or m at i on t o hi m and that th e p l a n wh i c h c o v e r e d Co u r tn e y d i d n o tc o n t a i n a n e x p r e s s s u b r o g a t i o n c l a u s e . On th e s a me d ay , P o p e su b m itted a l ett er t o C o u rtn ey ’s l aw y er, an d th is let ter co n tai n ed a n en clos u re p u rp o rtin g to b e a p ro v isio n o f th e a p p lica b le p o licy w h ich w o u ld e n tit le T ra v e ler s/H R I to
s ubr ogat i on. T hi s l ett ers t at ed, i nt eral i a:

### 7

I ti s [ H R I ’ s ] pos i t i on thatt he mem berorhi s dependent s ar e notre qui r ed t o pay the a cc iden t r elated ex p en ses, on ly the tortfea so r i s. T h u s the c h arg es a re ex clud ed an d b ec au se th ey w ere p a id [by T rav elers] , are rec o v era b le. In a d d iti o n , M iss is s ip p i re c o g n ize s e q u itab le s u b ro g a tio n w h ich w e a lso re ly upon. ¶ 7
. B y letter d a ted Ja n u a ry 2 , 1 9 9 7 , F a rm B u re a u ’s c o u n se l ag a in e x p re ss e d to C o u rtn ey ’s l aw yera concern aboutt he subr ogat i on i s s ue bas ed on Coo per T ire . T h ere after, o n Jan u ary 20, 1997, P ope submi t t ed anotherl ett ert o the Farm B ur eau a dj us t erconce rni ng as s ur ance s thatH R I w oul d be prot ect ed by w ay of bei ng l i s t ed as a paye e on any s ubs equentdr af ti s s ued b y F a r m Bu r e a u i n th e e v e n to f s e t t l e me n to f

Co u r tn e y ’ s c l a i m. ¶ 8
. I n d u e c o u r s e , a n a p p a r e n ts e t t l e me n twa s r e a c h e d o n th e p e r s o n a l i n j u r y c l a i m,
nece s s i t at i ng t he fi l i ng of a pet i t i on i n chanc ery courts eeki ng author i ty t o compromi s e a
m i nor ’ s doubt f

ul cl ai m ( C our tney’ s per s onal i nj ury cl ai m )
. A s not ed by t he cha ncel l ori n her opi ni on, the f

i l i ng of thi s pet i t i on w as on M ay 9, 1997, w hi ch w as appr oxi m at el y f i ve mont hs af t erthe exc hange of

doc um ent at i on betw een H R I and C our tney’ s l aw yer , and the admi s s i on by H R I thatther e w as no appl i cabl e i nsurance cont r actcont ai ni ng expr es s s ubr ogat i on pr ovi s i ons . C our tney’ s l aw yerw i s el y named H R I as a r es pondenti n thi s pet i t i on bas ed on H R I ’ s pr evi ous l y- as s ert ed r i ghtof s ubr ogat i on. T he pet i t i on as s ert ed, i nt eral i a: [ M ] oni es w er e pai d t o m edi cal car e pr ovi der s on behal f o f [ C our tney] , by re sp o n d e n t, [ H R I], a d m in istra to r fo r M e tra H e a lth , the P e tit io n e r’s h e a lth i n s u r e r , i n th e a mo u n to f T we n ty - S i x T h o u s a n d Two Hu n d r e d T we n ty - T wo a n d 7 9 /1 0 0 D o llars ($ 2 6 ,2 2 2 .7 9 ). [H R I] h a s b e e n m a d e a re sp o n d e n t in th is caus e f orthe purpos e of

al l ow i ng [ H R I ] t o c om e i nt o Courta nd s how c aus e as t o the ext entof

i t s s ubr ogat i on l i en, i f

any.

### 8

I n a f ootnot e i n heropi ni on , the cha ncel l orobs erved that“[ n] ot abl y, the pet i t i on does not
a ss e rt th a t H R I sh o u ld sh o w c a u se a s to w h y it a s s e rt e d a s u b ro g a tio n lien , b u t to sh o w to
w h a t e x te n t it h e ld o n e , if a n y .” ¶9. A t the concl us i on of a hear i ng bef or e C hance l l or J ohn C
. R os s , J r . , on M ay 29, 1997, C h a n c e llo r R o ss a p p o in ted B e tty a s C o u rtn e y ’s g u a rd ian ; au th o riz e d B e tty to se ttl e th is doubt f ul cl ai m w i th t he l andow ner( Far m B ureau’ s i ns ur ed) ; and, author i zed the d i s b u r s e me n to f

$ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 r e c e i v e d f

r o m F a r m Bu r e a u a s s e t t l e me n to f th e d o u b t f

u l c l a i m. B as ed on the s ubr ogat i on di s put e, C hancell orR os s or der ed the s um of $26, 222. 79,
r epr es ent i ng t he amountof m edi cal expens es , t o be hel d i n t he r egi s try of the C our tunt i l t he subroga t i on i ssue had been res olved by the co urt . A ft er the authori zed pay m ent of at t orneys’ f ees , the r emai ni ng s ett l ementproceed s of $39,837.88 w ere pl aced int o an author i zed a ccount fo r C o u rtn e y ’s b e n e fit. ¶ 1 0
. H o w e v e r, o n Ju n e 2 , 1 9 9 7 , C o u rtn e y ’s law y e r f iled a n a m e n d e d p e tit io n fo r a u th o rity t o c om pr om i s e the m i nor ’ s doubt f ul c l ai m , j oi ni ng Tr avel er s a s a r es pondent
. T he amended pet i t i on al l eged, i nt eral i a: 5. O n oraboutM ar ch 26, 1996, [ H R I ] r epr es ent i ng [ T ravel ers ] , i nf or m ed [ couns el f

orB etty] thatthe contr actunderw hi ch [ C our tney’ s ] i ns ur ance benef i t s w er e pai d, had a s ubr ogat i on cl aus e w hi ch ent i t l ed them t o a s u b ro g a tio n lie n o n a n y se ttl e m e n t p ro c e e d s re c o v e re d o n b e h a lf o f [ C o u rt n e y ]. 6. O n o ra bo utSe pt e mber26 , 19 96 , [ c ou ns e l f orBet ty] r e qu es t ed d o c u m e n ta tio n o f t h e a lle g e d ri g h t o f s u b ro g a tio n a s s e rt e d b y [H R I]. 7. O n or aboutD ece m ber6, 1996, a page f r om a pol i cy of

i ns ur ance page 7, w as f axed t o [ couns el f

orB etty] b y [ H R I ] , w hi ch cont ai ned a s ubr ogat i on cl aus e, how ever , a r epr es ent at i ve fr om H eal thcar e R ecove r i es , I nc. , l at er cont act ed [ couns el f

orB etty] and r etr act ed thi s page a s bei ng partof the pol i cy of i ns ur ance underw hi ch C our tney A s hm or e w as cover ed.

### 9

8 . [C o u n s e l f

o r B e tty ] o b ta in e d a c o p y o f t h e c o n tr a c t b e tw e e n T V A [i.e ., T V R H A ] and [ T r avel er s ] and l earned t hat[ T r avel er s ] di d not , i n f act , have a ny s ubr ogat i on i nt er es tora r i ghtt o a l i en. L i kew i se, the am ended pe t i t i on al l eged thatH R I ( i n the s t ead of T r avel er s ) had i nt er f

er ed
w ith th e a tt em p ted d isbu rsem en t of th e se tt lem en t pro ce ed s, an d that H R I co n ti n u ed to as sert a subrog at i on ri gh tt o the sett l em ent pr oceed s, kn ow i ng that i thad no subroga t i on ri gh t s. ¶11. So, i n es sence, d ue t o t he fi l i ng of C our tney’ s amended pet i t i on on J une 2, 1997, Tr a v e l e r s wa s a d d e d a s a d e f e n d a n ta n d Co u r tn e y a s s e r t e d a c l a i m o f b a d f a i th a g a i n s tHRI and Tra vel er s . A tthi s t i m e, C our tney di d notatt empt t o have the cha ncel l orm ake a d e t e r mi n a t i o n a s t o th e d i s p u t e d s e t t l e me n tp r o c e e d s ( me d i c a l e x p e n s e s ) o v e rwh i c h HRI
a ss e rte d a su b ro g a tio n lien , b u t in ste a d , o v e r th e n e x t se v e ra l y e a rs, th e p a rties e n g a g e d in di s covery, and t he r ecor d r evea l s thatthey had mor e than a f ew di s covery di s put es . A l ong the w ay, H R I r emoved t hi s cas e t o f eder al court , onl y t o have a f eder al j udge l at err emand th e c a se b a c k to sta te c o u rt. A lso , o n N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 1 9 9 8 , C o u rtn e y re a c h e d h e r e ig h tee n th bi r thday. E ventual l y, by or derent er ed on D ece m ber10, 1999, the cha ncel l ort erm i nat ed the guar di ans hi p, and the r emai ni ng m oni es (e xcl us i ve of the es cr ow ed amountof $26, 222. 79)
w er e r el eas ed f

r om the guar di ans hi p account . L i kew i s e, on M ay 6, 2002, T r avel er s f i l ed a
m oti on f or s um m ary j ud gm ent and by order enter ed on O ct ob er 15, 20 02 , C han cel l or R oss deni ed s um m ary j udgm ent , and Tra vel er s di d notappea l the cha ncel l or ’ s rul i ng. ¶1 2. B y t he t i m e of t he t w o- day hear i ng w hi ch com m ence d on Fe brua ry 7 , 2005, C h an ce ll o r M ask w as the pres iding j u d g e ina sm u ch as C h an ce ll o r R o ss ha d by th at t im e left the benc h. A tt he concl us i on of the hear i ng, t he chanc el l ort ook t hi s m att erunderadvi s ement and i n due cour s e, s he ent er ed hertw enty- ni ne- page O pi ni on and J udgm enton J une 3, 2005.

### 10

I n hervery t hor ough opi ni on, C hance l l orM as k s etou tthe r el evantf act s , the pr ocedur al h isto ry o f th e ca se , a n d the issu e s b e fo re the co u rt. T h e ch a n c e llo r l ik e w is e m e ticu lo u sly addr es s ed and a nal yzed e ach c l ai m as s ert ed; namel y, ( 1) t or t i ous i nt er f er ence w i t h t he
s ett l ementnegot i at i ons ; ( 2) m i s r epr es ent at i on dur i ng the s ett l emen tnegot i at i ons ; ( 3) avai l abi l i ty of

the doctr i ne of

e qui t abl e s ubr ogat i on; ( 4) i m pr operas s ert i on of s ubr ogat i on; and, ( 5) E R I SA pr eempt i on of C our tney’ s puni t i ve damages cl ai m . H ow ever , bas ed on the
m ann er of the dep osi t i on of the otheri ssues, the ch ancell or deem ed itun necessary t o ad dress the i s s ue of

w hetherthe Em pl oyee Ret i r ementI ncom e S ecur i ty A ct( E R I SA ) pr eempt ed C o u rt n e y ’s c la im fo rp u n itiv e d a m a g e s . See 2 9 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 4 4 (a). W h il e the ch an ce ll o r’s
rul i ng wi l l b e d i s c us s e d i n mor e d e t a i l i n du e c ou r s e , s uf f i c e i tt o s t a t e h e r e thatt he chanc el l orf

ound thatthe ac t i ons of

H R I / T r avel er s di d notcons t i tut e bad f ai th and that“the p ro o f w a s in su ffic ien t to sh o w a n y h a rm o r in ju ry w h ich w a s s u ff

e re d in th e u lti m a te
s ett l ementof

t he ca s e by [ H R I / T r avel er s ’ s ] act i vi t i es dur i ng the negot i at i on p r oces s . ” The
c ha nc e l l orthu s e nt e r e d a j ud gmen td e ny i ng Courtne y’ s c l a i ms, a nd i ti s f r om thi s f

i nal j ud gm ent that C ou rtney app eal s t o u s. DI S CU S S I ON ¶13. “W e have decr eed on numer ous occasi on s t hat ‘ [ t ] his cou rtw i l l no tdi s turb the f i ndi ngs of

the cha ncel l orunl es s i ti s show n the cha ncel l orw as cl ear l y err oneous and the chan cel l or abused his dis cret i on . ’" I l l . Cent . R . R . v. McD ani el , 2006 M i s s . L E X I S 468, *5 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng Howar d v. Total f ina E & P U

SA, I nc. , 8 99 S o. 2d 88 2, 88 8 (M i ss. 2 0 0 5 ); H il l v. Sout he as te r n Floo rCove r ing Co. , I nc . , 5 9 6 S o . 2 d 8 7 4 , 8 7 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ); B el l v. P arker , 563 So. 2d 594, 597 ( M i s s . 1990) )
. " A bus e of di s cr et i on i s f

ound w hen the

### 11

r evi ew i ng courthas a ' def i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on' thatthe courtbel ow comm i t t ed a c l ear
err or of j ud gm ent and the con cl usi on i tr eache d up on a w ei gh i ng of the rel evan tfact ors. " I d. at*6 (ci t i ng How ard , 8 9 9 S o . 2 d a t 8 8 8 ; Car acci v. I nt 'l P aperCo. , 699 So. 2d 546, 556 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )). ¶14. W e w i l l br i ef

l y par aphr as e the i s s ues as pre s ent ed by t he par t i es . C our tney as s ert s the iss u e s to b e : (1 ) w h e th e r th e c h a n c e llo r a b u se d h e r d isc re tio n a n d w a s m a n ife stly w ro n g in f i ndi ng thatH R I and Tra vel er s w ere notl i able, no tw i thst and i ng theirfal se m i s r epr es ent at i ons of a val i d subr ogat i on l i en i n or dert o have Farm B ur eau l i s tH R I as a paye e on the s ett l ement chec k; ( 2) w het her H R I and T r avel er s had an a r guabl e r eas on t o pur s ue thei rs ubr ogat i on
c laim o n th e d isp u ted m e d ica l ex p e n se s o f $ 2 6 ,2 2 2 .7 9 , w h ich h a d b e e n in terp led in to c o u rt;
a n d , (3 ) w h e th e r H R I a n d T ra v e ler s s h o u ld b e liab le f o r a c tu a l an d p u n iti v e d a m a g e s fo r th e ir act i ons . H R I pr es ent s the i s s ues as: ( 1) w hetherC our tney pr oved al l the el ement s of her
c laim ; (2 ) w h e th e r H R I is li a b le fo r b a d faith an d tor tio u s in ter fe re n c e d u e to its e q u itab le
s ubr ogat i on cl ai m ; and, ( 3) w hetherCourtney’ s c l ai m s a r e pr eempt ed by ER I SA
. A l though st at ed d i ff

erent l y, T ravel ers basi cal l y m i rr ors H R I’ s i ssues. ¶1 5
. L ike th e c h an ce ll o r, b ase d o n o u r disp o sit ion o f cert ai n issue s, w e d ee m it u n n ec essa ry t o di s cus s w hetherE R I SA pr eem pts any of the cl ai m s as s ert ed i n t oday’ s cas e. A s t o the iss u e s w e d e e m a p p ro p ri a te to d isc u ss , w e re sta te th e se iss u e s fo r th e sa k e o f c lar ity in di s cus s i on.

### 12

I . W HETH ER HRI AND TRAVELERS T OR TI OU S LY I NT ER FER ED W I TH TH E S ETTLE M ENT BY I N I T I ALLY AS S E R T I NG CONT RACT UAL S UB ROGATI ON. ¶ 1 6
. C o u rtn e y a lleg e s th a t H R I a n d T ra v e ler s to rtio u sly in ter fe re d w ith h e r se ttl e m e n t w ith Fa rm B ur e a u b y mea ns of gr os s negl i gence and i nt ent i onal m i s r epr es ent at i on thatcontr actual
s ubr og a t i on e xi s t e d a s a ba s i s f ori t s c l a i m, w he n s uc h d i d n oti n f a c te xi s ti n the pol i cy. Fur therm or e, C our tney cl ai m s s he i s ent i t l ed t o puni t i ve damages pur s uantt o V al ley Forge
v. Str i c kl and , 620 So. 2d 535 (M i s s . 1993). T he chanc el l ordi s agr eed and def i ned t or t i ous i nter fer ence a s: “Tort i ous i nt er f

er ence ” i s any i nt ent i onal i nvas i on of , ori nt er f

er ence w i th, economi c, pr operty orcontr actual r i ght s , caus i ng i nj ury w i thoutj us tcaus e or e x c u s e . S e e 4 5 A m .J u r.2 d , I nt er f er ence , § 1
. ¶17. T hi s C our thas est abli shed t he fol l ow i ng elem ents o f i ntent i on al or f r audul ent
m isr ep rese n tat ion : “(1) a rep rese n tat ion , (2) it s falsi ty, ( 3 ) i ts m aterial ity , (4) the sp ea k er’s know l edge of

i t s f al s i ty ori gnor ance of

i t s truth, ( 5) hi s i nt entthati ts houl d be ac t ed on by th e h e a re r a n d in th e m a n n e r re a so n a b ly c o n tem p late d , (6 ) th e h e a re r’s ig n o ra n c e o f its fa ls ity , ( 7 ) h is r e lia n c e o n its tru th , (8 ) h is ri g h t to re ly th e re o n , and ( 9) hi s cons equentand pr oxi m at e i nj ury. ” Fr anklin v. L ovitt E qui p. Co. , I nc. , 420 So. 2d 1370, 1373 ( M i s s . 1982) ( ci t i ng H a m ilto n v. Mc G ill , 3 5 2 S o . 2 d 8 2 5 (M iss . 1 9 7 7 ); McMaho n v. McMaho n, 247 M iss . 8 2 2 , 1 5 7 S o . 2 d 4 9 4 (1 9 6 3 ); A nders on D unh am , I nc. v. A iken , 241 M i s s . 756, 133 So. 2d 527 (M i s s . 1961))
. ( E m phas i s added)
. L i kew i s e, thes e el ement s m us tbe pr oved by cl ear
a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e . Fra n k lin , 420 So. 2d at1373 ( ci t i ng P a rk e r v . H o w a rth , 340 So.

### 13

2 d 4 3 4 (M iss . 1 9 7 6 ); Cr aw f or d v. Sm ith B r os . L um berCo. , I nc. , 27 4 S o. 2d 67 5 (M i ss. 1 9 7 3 )). ¶18. C hance l l orM ask fou nd thatC ou rtney ’s clai m o f m i sr epresent at i on dur i ng the
s ett l ementnegot i at i ons di d notm eetthe Fra n k lin el ement s by cl earand convi nci ng
e v id e n c e ; th u s, T ra v e ler s a n d H R I w e re n o t li a b le f o r to rtio u s in ter fe re n c e . E n ro u te to th is f i ndi ng, C hance l l orM as k s t at ed, i nt eral i a: O f part i cul arconce r n t o the C our ti s thatdur i ng the negot i at i on of a s ett l ement b y c o u n se l fo r C o u rtn e y w ith [F a rm B u re a u ], a re p re se n tativ e o f H R I fa x e d to couns el f orC our tney an e xcerptf r om a di f

f er entpol i cy w hi ch cont ai ned an e x p re s s s u b ro g a tio n p ro v isio n . It i s o b v io u s th a t H R I sh o u ld h a v e d o n e its h o me wo r k b e f

o r e s e n d i n g b o g u s i n f

o rma t i o n t o Co u r tn e y ’ s a t t o rn e y . As d e sc rib e d a b o v e , H R I la ter re tra c ted th is re p re se n tat io n a n d m a in tain e d its pos i t i on thati thel d a cl ai m by w ay of equi t abl e s ubr ogat i on.

. . . . I ti s undeni abl e t hatH R I s houl d have know n thatthe contr actual s ubr ogat i on i nf or m at i on thatw as bei ng pr ovi ded t o C our tney’ s att orney w as f al s e. T he C our ti s di s turbed thatH R I ’ s us ual pr ocedur es di d notcal l f orver i f i cat i on on the partof

i t s r epr es ent at i ves thatthe Pl an cont ai ned expr es s s ubr ogat i on l anguage p ri or t o i t s cl ai m i ng thatm eans of r ecove ry. T he not i on s ugges t ed b y [C o u rtn e y ] i s th a t H R I ca re les sly as su m e d the risk o f a n y fa llo u t fro m th is m i s r epr es ent at i on beca us e, i n part , i td i d notthi nk a M i s s i s s i ppi att orney w oul d have de t ect ed the f al s e cl ai m and, f

ur ther , i tw as unco ncer ned about C o u rtn e y ’s c a re an d w e ll-b e in g . T h is C o u rt is lik e w ise c o n c e rn e d th a t an o u tof
- s t at e ent i ty w oul d engage i n s uch beha vi ort o the pos s i bl e detr i m entt o the c iti z e n s o f th is S tate . T h e C o u rt is fu rth e r c o n c e rn e d th a t H R I in sis ted o n its n a m e b e in g p lac e d o n th e se ttl e m e n t c h e c k p rio r to a n a d ju d ica tio n o f its e n tit lem e n t. D es pi t e the f

or egoi ng, the C ou rti s bound by an oath t o f ai thf ul l y and im p arti all y ap p ly the law to the fac ts of this case
. W h il e H R I’s ac ti o n s w ere i nappr opr i at e, the C our ti s unabl e t o di s cern any dam ages w hi ch w er e s uf f er ed beca us e of

thi s m i s r epr es ent at i on. Si m i l art o the f i ndi ngs of

J udge Pi cker i ng

### In Mc Arthur , it w as first represented b y th e insurer andits agents that th e health 5 

### ins urancepoli cy c ontaine d an e xpre ss subrogati on provis ion, when such provis ion wa s nonexistent, andsub sequ entlyit was assertedthat th e insurer helda claim of equitab le subrogation. JudgePic kering, in a ddre ss ing theinitia l fa ls e inf orm ation and theins ure d’s al le gations re lating the re to, exp lainedthat “[ n] ot e ver

y unple as ant

or irrit ating t

hing t hat occ urs to onein l if

e i s the bas is f

or a lawsui t and punitivedama ges . Thef ac t that t wo parti es disag ree o ver their resp ective leg al rights do es no t in ev ery in stance automaticallygiv e cause for a ba d fa it

h lawsui t. The f

ac t t hat one who c ontrac ts with another takes a p osition that cannot l ega lly bem aintaine d by and of i ts el f doe s not givere as on to f

il e s uit . Pl ainti ff

has bee n out no m oney and suf fe re d l ittl e if

any injur y. Hi s t es timony de mons trat es that hewas not pe rs onal ly involv ed in t he s ubrogati on dis puteto any gre at ext ent . Mos t of

the corresp on den ce occurred b etweenDefen dant Time an d th e carrier forthe th ird p arty tort fe as or or

with Plaintif

f’ s att orne y.” McArthur , 889 F. Supp. at 945. He f urther found that “ [r ] egardl es s a s to w hat happe ned, howeve r, Plaintif f ha s not dem onstrate d that Def end ant. . .caused Pl ainti ff any injur

y.” Id. (Thi s f

ootnot e i s a

ver batim quoteof Chanc el lor

Mas k’s footnote11 appearing at thebottom of pages 19-20 of her

Opini on and Judgm ent). 14 i n Mc Ar th u rv. Time I

n s . Co ., 889 F. S up p. 938 ( S. D
. M i s s . 1995) , w hi ch

5 d ea ltw ith a so m ew h at an alog o u s situ ati o n to the p rese n t dispu te, [] the C o u rt f i nds t hater r oneous i nf

or m at i on w as submi t t ed, butfi nds no dam ages w hi ch ar e attr i but abl e t o t he f

al s e i nf or m at i on. F ro m a re v iew o f th e e v id e n c e , itis u n d is p u ted th a t C o u rtn e y ’s d e c isio n to s ett l e the ca s e w as notpr om pt ed by the ac t i ons orf al s e i nf or m at i on of the R es pond ents , as des cr i bed above
. L i kew i s e, ther e w as no evi dence thatthe R esp o n d en ts’ a cti o n s h ad a n y im p ac t on the am o u n t of th e se tt lem en t. F u rth er, the comm uni cat i on w as w i th C our tney’ s att orney and the r i ghtof the att orney to re ly o n th is in fo rm a tio n , w h ile h a v in g a c c e ss to th e P lan , is les s th a n it w oul d have be en w her e the comm uni cat i ons had bee n w i th a n unr epr es ent ed per s on. T he C our tf

i nds thatH R I ’ s e rr oneous a s s ert i on of con t ractual s ubr ogat i on w as c orr ect ed and w i thdr aw n by H R I dur i ng the negot i at i on pr oces s betw een A s hm or e and Farm B ur eau, and som e f i ve ( 5) m onths pr i or to th e f ilin g o f th e first p e tit io n . H R I’s lette r c lar ify in g th e n a tu re o f th e ir cl ai m w as r ece i ved by [ C our tney’ s ] couns el i n D ece m ber1996, and the doubt f ul cl ai m hear i ng w as hel d i n M ay 1997. Separ at el y f r om the as s ert i on of contr actual s ubr ogat i on, H R I ha s c ons i s t ent l y a s s ert ed a cl ai m f orr i ght s of r ecove r y underw hat everf or m avai l abl e. A ddi t i onal l y, F arm B ur eau r ecogni zed a pot ent i al cl ai m of H R I , ar i s i ng nots ol el y f r om H R I ’ s err oneous comm uni cat i on, butf

r om the Supr eme C our t ’ s hol di ng i n Coo per T ire .

### 15

A ccor di ngl y, the C our tfi nds t hat[ C our tney’ s ] cl ai m on thi s gr ound s houl d be D E N I E D
. H ow ever , as expl ai ned above, a di f f er entre s ul tw oul d l i kel y have b e e n re a c h e d u n d e r a d if fe re n t s e t o f f

a c ts . ¶19. I n heropi ni on, C hance l l orM as k r el i ed hea vi l y on thi s C ou rt ’s d eci s i on i n V al ley Fo r g e I n s . Co . v. S tr ic k la n d

, 620 So. 2d 535 ( M i s s . 1993)
. W e di s cuss her e the r el evant fac ts of V al ley Forge
. D ar l ene Str i ckl and, a r es i dentof L oui s i ana, appl i ed w i th V al l ey For ge In su ra n c e C o m p a n y fo r an au to m o b ile liab ili ty p o licy , a n d a te m p o ra ry b in d e r w a s is su e d to pr ovi de cove r age w hi l e Str i ckl and’ s appl i cat i on underw entf ur therrevi ew conce r ni ng perm anen tcov erage. T he b i nd er pr ov i ded , i nteral i a, $5 0, 00 0 in uninsured m otor i st
c o v e ra g e , a n d $ 5 ,0 0 0 in m e d ica l p a y m e n ts c o v e ra g e . W h ile th e b in d e r w a s in e ffe c t, a tra g ic
a u to m o b ile a c c id e n t o c c u rre d in w h ich S trick lan d ’s tw e lv e -y e a r-o ld d a u g h ter w a s s e v e re ly in ju re d . T h e a c c id e n t o c c u rre d in J a c k so n C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i, an d th e d riv e r o f th e c a r in
w h ich S trick lan d ’s d a u g h ter w a s a p a ss e n g e r w a s a re lativ e w h o w a s a M iss iss ip p i re sid e n t. T hi s r el at i ve/ dr i verhad a $25, 000 l i abi l i t y pol i cy w i th N at i onw i de I ns ur ance C om pany. V al l ey For ge eventual l y pa i d Str i ckl and the pol i cy l i m i t s of $55, 000, and N at i onw i de t her eaf t erof f e r e d t o s e t t l e by pa ymen tof i t s po l i c y l i mi t s of

$2 5, 00 0, bu ton l y i f

V a l l ey For ge w oul d w ai ve any s ubr ogat i on r i ght s ba s ed on V al l ey For ge’ s paymentt o St r i ckl and. H o w e v e r, V a lle y F o rg e re fu s e d to w a iv e its su b ro g a tio n ri g h ts . I d. at537-38. V al l ey For ge
e v e n tu a lly filed a d e c lar a to ry ju d g m e n t ac tio n in Ja c k so n C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt to det e r mi ne the i s s ue of

the va l i di ty o f

i t s s ub r og a t i on c l a i m. Str i c kl a nd c ou nt e r c l a i m ed, al l egi ng, i nt eral i a, thatV al l ey For ge w as gui l ty of t or t i ous i nt er f

er ence and bad f

ai th. I n due
cour s e, the chanc el l ordeni ed V al l ey Forge ’ s subr ogat i on cl ai m , t hus f i ndi ng thatSt r i ckl and
w as ent i t l ed t o the $25, 000 paymentundert he N at i onw i de pol i cy. T he cha ncel l or

### In ac tua li ty, in Vall ey Forge , thi s Court

a ff ir me d in part , and re ver se d and r ende re d 6 

### in part , the c hanc el lor ’s final judgme nt. Howeve r, conc er ning t he c hanc el lor ’s rul ings as dis cusse d in t

his opini on, this Court

af firm ed. It

was only wi th regard t o thechance ll or’ s rul ing on an is suenot re le vant to t he di spos ition of

today’s ca sethat t

his Court re ver se d and rend ered. 16 addi t i onal l y f

ound, i nt eral i a, thatSt r i ckl and w as ent i t l ed t o $1, 000, 000 i n puni t i ve damages fr o m V a lle y F o rg e o n th e to rt io u s in te rf e re n c e /b a d fa ith c la im
. I d. at538. ¶ 2 0
. O n a p p e a l, th is C o u rt a ff ir m e d
. I d . at 5 4 3
. In the ca se su b jud ice, C h an ce ll o r M ask ’s

6 opi ni on de t ai l ed the f

act s i n V al ley Forge , a n d t h e n d i s t i n g u i s h e d t o d a y ’ s c a s e f r o m V al ley For ge b y sta tin g , inte r a lia: T he cha ncel l orf

ou nd , w i th r egar d t o the dec l ar at ory act i on, thatunder L oui s i ana l aw and the pr ovi s i ons of the pol i cy, V al l ey For ge w as notent i t l ed t o s ubr ogat i on oroff

s et , and w i th r egar d t o the count er cl ai m , f ound that( 1) the S trick lan d s w e re e n tit led to th e $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 b e n e fit u n d e r A u ll’s p o licy w ith N a tio n w id e ; (2 ) V a lley F o rg e m u st te n d e r a n o th e r p a y m e n t o f $ 5 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 to the Str i ckl ands as a r es ul tof i t s f ai l ur e t o obt ai n pr i orcourtappr oval f orthe pr evi ous payment ; and ( 3) aw ar ded $1, 000, 000. 00 t o the Str i ckl ands , and an a d d iti o n a l $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 “ p a y a b le o n ly if V a ll ey F o rg e fa iled to sa tisfy c e rta in corr ect i ve and pr event i ve meas ur es des cr i bed i n the j udgm ent . . . . ” T h e c h a n c e llo r fo u n d th a t “ V a lley Fo rg e h a s e n g a g e d in a b a d fa ith e ffo rt to a ss e rt in Miss iss ip

p i a c o n ten tio n V

a lley Fo rg e kn o w s it c a n n o t su c c e ss fu lly as s er ti n L ouis i ana, the s tat e w her e the contr act w as m ade
. ” ( E m phas i s added b y Ju sti ce L ee . ) I

d. at5 39. V al l ey For ge br eac hed i t s duty by as s ert i ng a “me ri t l es s s ubr ogat i on cl ai m . ” H ow ever , i ti s cr i t i cal t o i dent i f y w hatm ade the s ubr ogat i on cl ai m “mer i t l es s . ” V al l ey For ge att empt ed t o o bt ai n the advant age of

M i s s i s s i ppi s t atut ory of f s etr i ght s s etf

or th i n Sect i on 83- 11- 107, though t he i ns ur ance pol i cy w as execut ed i n L oui s i ana, and “[ t ] he cl ai m that a M iss iss ip p i co u rt w o u ld a p p ly M iss iss ip p i sta tu to ry law is p a ten tly unt enabl e. ” I

d. at540. Fur ther , “V al l ey For ge k new . . . thatthe s ubr ogat i on agr eements i gned.
. . by t he St r i ckl ands [ i n connect i on w i th t hei rre cei ptof the p a y m e n t fro m N a tio n w id e ] w a s v o id . . . .V a lley F o rg e k n e w L o u isia n a law d id n o t p e rm it s u b ro g a tio n o r o ff s e t u n til a ft e r t h e in s u re d is m a d e w h o le
. I d. at 5 3 9 . A c c o rd in g ly , the fa c ts s u p p o rte d th e fin d in g th a t V a lley F o rg e a c ted w ith “gr oss negl i gence i n f i l i ng and mai nt ai ni ng a gr oundl es s l aw s ui t , ” t o the d e tr im e n t o f t h e m in o r c h ild
. I d. a t 5 4 0 .[]

### Co op er Tiredoe s not ans wer the ques ti on of w hether Mis si ss ippire cogni ze s 7 

### equ itable subro gatio n inthe co ntex t of a h ealth in suran ce p o licy
. Cooper Tire simply sugge st s that

Mis si ss ippimi ght rec ogniz e this the ory of re cove ry. 17 U n lik e th e c a se at h a n d , V a lley F o rg e initia ted leg a l ac tio n to p ro m o te a c laim th at w as c learly g rou n d less from the o u tsetan d d id n o t r etreat from its p o s itio n . ¶ 2 1
. W e a g re e w ith th e c h a n c e llo r th a t T ra v e ler s a n d H R I d id n o t to rtio u sly in ter fe re w ith the s ett l ementthr ough gr os s negl i gence ori nt ent i onal m i s r epr es ent at i on, beca us e C our tney
s uf f er ed no damages f

r om the i ncorr ectas s ert i on of contr actual s ubr ogat i on. Fur therm or e,
w e f i nd thatt he cha ncel l orcor r ect l y di s t i ngui s hed thi s C our t ’ s hol di ng i n V al ley Forge f

r om t oday’ s cas e – T ravel er s and H R I r etr eat ed f r om thei ri ncorr ectas s ert i on, w her eas V al l ey F o rg e d id n o t. T h u s , th is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. II. W HE TH ER TR AV ELE RS A ND H RI TO RT I O USLY I NTERF ER ED W I TH THE S ET TL EM EN T BY C O NTI NUOUS L Y AS S ERTI N G EQUI TABLE S UB ROGATI ON. ¶22. E ven though T r avel er s and H R I eventual l y abandone d thei r contr actual s ubr ogat i on cl ai m , they cont i nued t o pur s ue an e quit able subr ogat i on cl ai m , w hi ch C our tney as s er t ed
c o n s titu te d b a d fa ith o n th e p a rt o f T ra v e le rs a n d H R I. ¶ 2 3
. T ra v e ler s a n d H R I ar g u e th a t V al ley Forge is n o t d isp o sitiv e o f th is iss u e b e c a u se th is C o u rtd id n o t r ea ch the q u esti o n o f equ it ab le su b rog ati o n in tha t case . F u therm o re, T rav elers
a n d H R I a rg u e th a t a m o re re c e n t c a se e n c o u ra g e s a ss e rtio n o f a c laim fo r e q u itab le
s ubr ogat i on, namel y Co o p e r T ire & R u b b e r C o . v. S trip lin , 6 5 2 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). C h an ce ll o r M ask li k ew ise p rov ided a d etail ed an alys is of Coo per T ire i n heropi ni on. 7

### 18

I n Coo per T ire , a m i no r chi l d (Str i pli n) w as i njur ed b y an un i nsured m otor i st w hi l e r i di ng hi s bi cycl e. T he f ather ’ s i ns ur er( C ooperT i r e) pai d $12, 472. 80 t o m edical provi ders pu rs uan tt o his heal th care plan. In conn ect i on w i th these payment s , the par ent s exec ut ed R ece i ptand Subr ogat i on A gr eement s w hi ch s ubr ogat ed the i ns ur ert o thei rr i ght s of r ecove ry f

orthe i nj ury agai ns tany per s on orcorpor at i on . T he f ather ’ s aut om obi l e i ns ur er( A etna) ther eaf t er agr eed t o pay Str i pl i n t he sum of $75, 000. 00 pur s uantt o the f ather ’ s uni ns ur ed m ot or i s tcover age. C ooperT i r e as s ert ed a c l ai m agai ns tthats um i n the amount equal t o w hati thad pai d t o m edi cal pr ovi der s , w hi ch Str i pl i n r ej ect ed, ci t i ng the l ack of

pr i orcourtappr oval of the s ubr ogat i on agr eem ent. T he C h a n c e llo r h e ld th a t th e p o st-c laim su b ro g a tio n a g re e m e n t w a s in v a lid a s to the c h il d b ec au se itlack ed p ri o r co u rta p p rov al, a n d C o o p er T ir e ap p ea led. In af f i r m i ng the chanc el l or , the Supr eme C our ts t at ed that“ [ i ] f CooperTi r e i s due cons i der at i on, i tw oul d be bas ed up on i t s ow n equi t abl e cl ai m f or re im b u rse m e n t o f n e c e ss a ry m e d ica l ex p e n se s u n d e r th e d o c trin e o f q u a sic o n tra c t. B e c a u se C o o p e r T ire ra ise d th is c laim o n a p p e a l, b u t d id n o t ra ise it bel ow , the i s s ue i s now w ai ved. ” I d. at 11 0 4
. B ase d o n the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s e x p lan a tio n th a t th e c h ild ’s h e a lth in su re r c o u ld h a v e ra ise d a n e q u itab le c laim f orr ei m bur s ementi n t he t r i al cour t , i ti s under s t andabl e thatFar m B ur eau, and H R I , w oul d have vi ew ed the si tuat i on athand as gi vi ng r i s e t o thatf or m of cl a i m. H oweve r , b e c a us e the Su pr e me Cou r td i d no tt a ke u p the i s s ue of equi t abl e s ubr ogat i on i n thi s cont ext , thi s hol di ng has l i m i t ed appl i cabi l i ty on th a ti t e m. C hance l l orM as k t hen hel d: B as ed on the f

or egoi ng anal ys i s , the C our tf i nds thatthe hol ding i n V al ley For ge s houl d notbe s tr ai ned t o f orbi d the as s ert i on of

e qui t abl e s ubr ogat i on i n t he cont extof a M i s s i s s i ppi heal th i ns ur ance pol i cy. Fur ther , thatcas e does n o t su p p o rt a c a u se o f a c tio n w h e re c o n tra c tu a l su b ro g a tio n w a s e rro n e o u sly assert ed, then w i thd raw n, du ri ng the n ego t i at i on process.

. . . . [T h e issu e is] w h ethe r [ T rav elers an d H R I] ex h ib it ed “b ad faith ” b y [th eir] a ss e rtin g e q u itab le su b ro g a tio n , o r o th e rw ise e n g a g e d in to rtio u s b e h a v io r in th e i ra s s e r t i o n o f

a s u b r o g a t i o n c l a i m. In o rde r t o estab li sh a c lai m o f ba d faith , [C o u rtn ey ] m u st pro v e: (1) lac k o f a “l egi t i m at e orar guabl e r eas on” f oras s ert i ng a r i ghtt o s ubr ogat i on, and ( 2) com m i ssi on of a w i l l ful or m al i ci ou s w rong or act i on w i th g ross and reckl ess d is re g a rd fo r t h e in s u re d ’s ri g h ts . D i xie Ins . C o. v. Mooneyham , 684 So. 2d 5 7 4 , 5 8 3 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ); L i f e & Cas . I

ns. Co. v. B r is tow , 529 So. 2d 620, 622

### Chanc el lor Mas k devot ed an entire se ction of her opini on to hol ding t

hat Travel er s 8 

### and HRIcoul d not rely upon thedoctrine of equi ta blesubrogati on base d on the hol dings of othe r s tate s’ courts . However, that i s not an i ss ue on a

ppea l be ca

useTravel er s and HRI relinquish ed any an d all subro gatio n claims.19 ( M i s s . 1988)
. T he C ourtpr evi ous l y des cr i bed the el ement s of a cl ai m f

or to rtio u s in ter fe re n c e w ith a se ttl e m e n t. T he C our t ’ s f

i ndi ngs above r egar di ng t he avai l abi l i ty of e qui t abl e s ubr ogat i on obvi at e t he need f

orext ens i ve di s cus s i on conce rni ng w hetherH R I ’ s as s ert i on of thatdoctr i ne w as l egi t i m at e orar guabl e. B as ed on the l ack of contr ol l i ng 8 cas e l aw , and otherf

act or s s etf

or th bel ow , the C our tf

i nds thatH R I ’ s act i ons in a s s e rt in g th is d o c tr in e w e re n e ith e r t o rt io u s n o r i n “ b a d fa ith .” C o u n sel f

o r [ C o u rtn ey ] referred t o H R I’s su b rog ati o n i n terest i n comm uni cat i ons w i t h M etr aH eal th pr i ort o the al l eged t or t i ous as s ert i on of c o n tra c tu a l su b ro g a tio n b y H R I. A d d itio n a lly , as re fe rre d to e a rlier in th is opi ni on, s ever al m onths pr i ort o the f i l i ng of the f i rs tpet i t i on, Far m B ur eau expr es s ed conce r n t o counse l forC our tney t hat[ T r avel er s and H R I ] m ay have a s ubr ogat i on c l ai m i n s om e f or m bas ed on the Coo

per T ire cas e, as di s cus s ed above. Thus, the i ns ur erf orthe t or t f

eas or , r eac t i ng t o the r ece nt( though now ten-y ea r old ) ruli n g s o f ou r S u p rem e C o u rt , ex p resse d ind ep en d en t co n c e rn overthe pos s i bi l i ty of

a s ubr ogat i on cl ai m by t he hea l th i ns ur ance pr ovi derf or th e v i c t i m. H R I ’ s pur s ui ng a pot ent i al l egal pos i t i on conce rni ng equi t abl e s ubr ogat i on, th o u g h u n s u c c e s s fu lly , d o e s n o t in its e lf e x p o s e th e m to lia b ility
. V al ley For ge , a t53 9 ( “ [ F] i l i ng a c ompl a i ntt o r e s ol ve a l e ga l i s s ue i s no tt o be cons i der ed bad f

ai th m er el y beca us e the i s s ue i s ul t i m at el y r es ol ved aga i ns tthe i ns ur er . ”) ( ci t i ng Employ e rs ’Mutual Cas ual t y Com pa ny v. Tom

pk ins , 490 So. 2d 89 7 ( M i s s . 19 86 ) )
. The Cour tf i nd s tha t[ Tr a ve l e r s a nd H RI ] had a l egi t i m at e orar guabl e r eas on f orass ert i ng a r i ghtt o equi t abl e s ubr ogat i on, th o u g h th e y d id n o t su c c e e d o n th e irc la im
. C f. D im e o v. G e sik , 197 O r . A pp. 5 6 0 , 1 0 6 P .3 d 6 9 7 (O r. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ).[] Itis un d ispu ted th at th e p o tential ca se a g ains t A rno ld w as se tt led w ith F arm B ur eau f

orr eas ons ot her t han the pot ent i al cl ai m s as s ert ed by H R I or T r avel er s . T he C our tf

i nds thatne i therH R I ’ s norT r avel er s ’ act i ons af f ect ed [ C our tney’ s ] deci s i on t o el ectt o s ett l e the cas e r athert han t i m el y purs ui ng her cl ai m t o a tr i al on the m eri t s agai nstthe tor t feas or. S i nce [C ou rtney ’s ] s e t t l e mentw a s f

orf ul l po l i c y l i mi t s , H RI ’ s i nv ol ve mentdi d n ota f f e c tt he amount of

s ett l ement . T hu s, the pr oof w as i ns uf

f i ci entt o s how any harm or

### 20

injury w h ich w as su ffered in the u lt im ate sett lem en t of the ca se b y [T rav elers’s and H R I’ s] act i vit i es duri ng the n ego t i at i on process. W i th r egar d to the cl ai m thatthe al l eged t or t i ous conductof [ T r avel er s and H R I ] del ayed Courtney’ s acces s t o the s ett l ementf unds , the C our tf

i nds that the f unds w er e depos i t ed i n the C ou rt ’s r egi s try on the j oi ntpet i t i on f i l ed on behal f of C our tney and Far m Bure au. Pr i ort o H R I orT r avel er s bei ng s erved w i th process, an orderw as ent ered di rect i ng the dep osi tof th e fund s. N egot i at i ons betw een the part i es cont i nued f ol l owi ng the r e mandf

r om Feder al D i s tr i ctC our ti n 1998. See Exhi bi t35. I n the l ett err ece i ved as E xhi bi t35, dated D ecem ber 7, 19 98 , coun sel f or H R I request ed t hat the P et i t i on er di sm i ss th e c o m p lain t ag a in st H R I b e c a u se o f H R I’s “ d e c isio n to fo re g o a n y c laim agai ns tthe f

unds be i ng he l d by the C hance ry Court
. ” Counsel f orH R I f ur ther s t at ed that“I have a l s o s ugges t ed t o you on s ever al occa s i ons s i nce the s um m erof

1997, that , beca us e [ H R I ] i s w ai vi ng i t s s ubr ogat i on l i en, i tbe di s m i s s ed as a def

endant
. ” A s des cr i bed above , t he dam ages w hi ch ar e now ci t ed by [ C our tney] as a bas i s forre l i ef w er e nots uf

f er ed unt i l af

t erthe f i l i ng o f th e se c o n d p e tit io n . T h e C o u rt fin d s n o b a sis in e v id e n c e th a t th e d e lay s in br i ngi ng the mat t ert o a f i nal hear i ng w er e pr i m ar i l y attr i but abl e t o ei ther part y. ¶2 4
. W e a g re e w ith th e c h a n c e llo r. In a c c o rd a n c e w ith th is C o u rt’s d ec isi o n s in Mooneyham and B r is tow , T ra v e ler s a n d H R I h a d a “ leg iti m a te o r a rg u a b le r e a so n ” to b eli ev e tha t equ it ab le sub rog ati o n m igh t hav e b ee n av ail ab le t o them , b ase d o n this C o u rt ’s l anguage i n Coo

per T ire . A ddi t i onal l y, i n acc or dance w i th Tom pk ins , w e h old that
r eques t i ng a courtt o deci de w hethere qui t abl e s ubr ogat i on i s a vi abl e theory of r ecove ry does
no ti n i t sel f equa t e to t he “com m i ssi on o f a w i l l ful or m al i ci ou s w rong o r act i on w i th g ross and r eckl es s di s r egar d f orthe i ns ur ed’ s r i ght s . ” Thus, T r avel er s and H R I di d notacti n bad fa ith to to rtio u sly in ter fe re w ith C o u rtn e y ’s se ttl e m e n t; th e re fo re , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit.

### 21 CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 5
. T h e ch a n c e llo r d id n o t err in h o ld in g th a t T ra v e le rs a n d H R I d id n o t to rtio u sly i nter fer e w i th C ou rtney ’s sett l em ent by i ncorr ect l y assert i ng con tractual s ub rogat i on , becau se C o u rtn ey su ffered n o d am ag es. L ikew ise, the ch an ce ll o r d id n o t err i n h o lding that T rav elers
a n d H R I d id n o t to rtio u sly in ter fe re w ith C o u rtn e y ’s s e ttle m e n t b y a ss e rtin g e q u itab le
su b ro g a tio n , b e c a u se T ra v e ler s a n d H R I c o u ld h a v e p lau s ib ly b e liev e d th a t eq u itab le
s ubr ogat i on w as a val i d cl ai m pur s uantt o thi s C our t ’ s hol di ng i n Coo per T ire . Fur therm or e, T r avel er s and H R I had the r i ghtt o have a courtdeci de w hetherequi t abl e s ubr ogat i on w as a vi abl e theory of

r ecove r y. Forthes e r eas ons , w e f i nd thatthe C hance l l ordi d notabus e her di s cr et i on; ther ef

or e, w e af

f i r m the f i nal j udgm entof

the C hance ry C our tof

L ee Count y. ¶26. AF F I RM ED . S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R , P .J ., A N D D I C K I N S O N , J ., C O N C U R . G R A V E S , J ., CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY. EASLE Y, J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND DI S S ENTS I N P ART W I TH S EP ARATE W RI TTEN OP I NI ON J OI NE D B Y DI AZ , P . J . , AND R A N D O L P H , J.
EAS LEY, J UST I CE, CO NCU RRI NG I N PART AND DI S S ENTI NG I N PART: ¶2 7. A f

t e rr e vi e w i ng thi s Court ’ s o pi ni on i n C o o p e rT ire & R u b b e r C o . v. S trip lin , 652 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ), I c a n n o t fu lly c o n c u r w ith th e p lu ra lity ’s a n a ly sis a n d h o ld in g in thi s cas e. T hi s cas e i s unquest i onabl y di s t i ngui s habl e f r om ourhol di ng i n Coo

per T ire . In Coo per T ire , the C our tcons i der ed a f undament al l y di f

f er ents etof fact s r egar di ng the q u e stio n o f su b ro g a tio n o f a m in o r’ s r ig h ts to th e se ttl e m e n t p ro c e e d s, w h ich a p p a re n tly pr om pt ed the C our t ’ s di ct a r el i ed upon by the pl ur al i ty.

### 22

¶28. C ooper T i r e w as t he em ployer of St r i pl i n’ s f ather w hen St r i pl i n w as i nj ur ed by an
u n in s u re d m o to ri s t. Coo per T ire , 652 So. 2d at1103. C ooperT i r e, a s el f
- i ns ur ed company, pai d St r i pl i n’ s m edi cal pr ovi der s $12, 472. 80 purs uantt o t he t erm s of an e m pl oyee pe ns i on
a n d in s u ra n c e p ro g ra m . Id
. S tri pli n’s par ents agreed to sett l e S tri pli n’s uni nsured m otor i st
c la im fo r $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 u n d e r t h e p a re n ts ’ A e tn a p o lic y . I d. ¶2 9
. S tr ipli n ’s p are n ts also ex ec u ted rec eipt an d su b rog ati o n ag ree m en ts w ith C o o p er T ir e i n connec t i on w i th the p aym ents f orSt r i pl i n’ s m edi cal expens es pai d by C ooperT i r e. I d. H ow ever , the par ent s di d nots eek pr i orcourtap pr oval bef or e exe cut i ng the s ubr ogat i on
a g re e m e n t. Id
. T he chanc el l ordet erm i ned thatthe s ubr ogat i on agr eementw as i nval i d and
or der ed the r eturn of

the m oney w i thhel d a nd pa i d t o CooperT i r e pur s uantt o the s ubr ogat i on
a g re e m e n t. Id
. at1104. T hi s C our taf f i r m ed the cha ncel l or ’ s deci s i on, s t at i ng: I n McCoy , w e h eld tha t a p are n t m ay no t assig n his ch il d ' s rig h ts to pr ocee ds der i ved f

r om an i ns ur ance pol i cy t o a thi r d party r ender i ng m edi cal car e t o s ai d chi l d beca us e the par enthad no r i ghtt o, ori nt er es ti n, the proc eeds
. W e ext ended Mc Co y 's hol di ng i n Marsh by requ ir ing pa re n ts to o b tain c h a n c e ry c o u rt a p p ro v a l p rio r to th e a ss ig n m e n t o f a c h ild ' s rig h ts to proceed s. B y ex e c u tin g su b ro g a tio n ag re e m e n ts, M r. an d M rs. S trip lin i m perm i s s i bl y att empt ed t o as s i gn aw ay St r i pl i n' s r i ght s t o a port i on of uni ns ur ed mot or i s tpr ocee ds due hi m . A s St r i pl i n w as the onl y party ent i t l ed to th o se p ro c e e d s v ia h is in ju ri e s , h is p a re n ts h a d n o rig h t to a ss ig n th e m to C o o p e r T ir e a b s e n t p ri o r c o u rt a p p ro v a l. McCoy [ v. Pr e f e r r e d Ris kI n s . Co .], 471 S o. 2d [ 396] at398 [ ( M i s s . 1985) ]
. T hus , the courtdi d noterrby f ai l i ng to e n fo rc e th e a g re e m e n t. Coo per T ire , 652 So. 2d at1104. ¶ 3 0
. H e re , T ra v e ler s a n d H R I a d m it th a t t h e y n e v e r h a d a su b ro g a tio n a g re e m e n t w ith C our tney orC our tney’ s par ent s, n ot even a n i nval i d s ubr ogat i on agr eementas i n Cooper

### 23

T ire . Fur ther , C our tney, as St r i pl i n i n Coo per T ire w as a m ino r, th ere fore prior c o u rt appr oval w as r equi r ed pr i ort o a ny a s s i gnm entof Courtney’ s r i ght s t o the pr ocee ds
. A s the f a c t s o f th i s c a s e a r e s o c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m Coo per T ire , I do notagr ee that T ra v e ler s a n d H R I h a d an arg u a b le c laim o f eq u itab le s u b ro g a tio n b a se d o n o u r h o ld in g in Coo per T ire . I agr ee thatthe pl ur al i ty i s cor r ecti n i t s af f i r m ance of

the cha ncel l or ’ s f

i ndi ng thatT r avel er s and H R I di d nothave a n equi t abl e cl ai m f ors ubr ogat i on agai ns tC our tney. H ow ever , I w oul d re ver s e t he chanc el l or ’ s deci s i on denyi ng C our tney’ s bad fa i th cl ai m and
r emand f orf ur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on f orthe r eas ons s t at ed her ei n. DI AZ , P . J . , AND RA NDOL P H, J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.