Opinion ID: 1134203
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: was the award of damages for emotional suffering against the overwhelming weight of the evidence?

Text: The jury's verdict of $50,000 in compensatory damages was based on a finding that Life & Casualty conduct inflicted emotional distress on Bristow. The evidence concerning emotional distress was not voluminous. Bristow's wife, Frances, testified that after the benefits were cut off, her husband became depressed, was unable to rest and was moody and worried. Randal Thomas, a psychologist who saw Bristow for vocational rehabilitation assessment, said that Bristow was depressed and anxious to a degree that, if it were any worse, would require medical treatment. Bristow told him he was worried about finances; he had a mortgage payment due. In Mississippi damages for mental anguish and emotional upset cannot be considered in absence of finding an independent intentional tort separate from the breach of contract. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mississippi, Inc. v. Maas, 516 So.2d 495, 498 (Miss. 1987); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Day, 487 So.2d 830, 835 (Miss. 1986); Simpson, supra, 477 So.2d at 250. In the present case, neither the pleadings nor the proof support such a finding against Life & Casualty. The counter-claim mentions both fraud and intent to inflict emotional distress. However, common law fraud is not properly pleaded here since there was no allegation that Bristow relied on any representation of Life & Casualty in any pertinent manner. As to intentional infliction of emotional distress, neither of the two witnesses who spoke to this matter made even an unsupported assertion that Life & Casualty intended for Bristow to be made miserable. The testimony of Dr. Thomas does not even speak to the issue of causality at all. Dr. Thomas testified only that Bristow was depressed when he examined him. He also gave the opinion that this distress was also caused by his financial worry. He did not, however, venture any opinion as to the degree to which the benefits cut off contributed to those financial worries. In fact, it is clear from this record that Dr. Thomas never even had seen Bristow before the examination, let alone before the accident. For all he knew, Bristow might have been habitually depressed. In short, there was no substantial evidence to support the award of damages for mental distress. Because our conclusion on liability and punitive damages is dispositive, it is not necessary to address the other assignments of error. There being nothing in the record to support either actual or punitive damages, the plaintiff must take nothing. The verdict of the jury must be reversed and judgment rendered for Life & Casualty. REVERSED AND RENDERED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. ZUCCARO, J., not participating.