Opinion ID: 1793497
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the court err in allowing peavy to introduce evidence on, and then amend the pleadings to encompass, the following: 1) the policy's definition of total disability versus the alleged mississippi definition, 2) the separate premium separate coverage argument, 3) the limitation of liability argument, 4) the automatic premium loan provision, and 5) independent life's net worth?

Text: In his complaint Peavy alleged, inter alia, 1) that Watson and Davis made fraudulent misrepresentations to him, specifically that by filing for waiver of premium he would lose his double indemnity, and that he could file at a later time; 2) that Independent Life failed to allow the disability claim even though the company knew Peavy was totally disabled; and 3) that Independent Life willfully and in bad faith used the unequal wealth and bargaining position of the parties to effect economic gain for [Independent Life]. Under this assignment, Independent Life really makes two arguments: that it was error for the court to admit the evidence in question and allow the pleadings to be amended, and that the evidence thus allowed was legally insufficient to sustain the finding of liability and the assessment of punitive damages. To the extent that the trial court allowed evidence that Independent Life denied the claim by using an invalid definition of total disability, the issue was within the scope of the complaint. In that complaint Peavy alleged that Independent Life [failed] to allow [Peavy's] claim for waiver of premium benefits at a time when [Independent Life] knew [Peavy] was totally disabled and entitled to said benefits under said insurance policy. The trial court also allowed evidence that Peavy paid three (3) separate premiums for the basic policy, the double indemnity benefit, and the waiver of premium benefit; and evidence that Independent Life, in the policy, made the double indemnity benefit dependent on the insured's not filing for waiver of premium. Apparently, Peavy hoped to use this evidence in support of a claim that, because he had paid a premium for the double indemnity benefit, the company committed a wrongful act by conditioning continuation of that benefit on Peavy's refraining from filing for waiver of premium. In his complaint Peavy alleged that the company's representation to him regarding loss of double indemnity was fraudulent. The pleadings were sufficient, under the applicable standard, to give notice of the claims which Peavy advanced at trial. A pleading is to contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8(a)(1), Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. The comment to Rule 8 begins with this statement: The purpose of Rule 8 is to give notice, not to state facts and narrow the issues as was the purpose in prior Mississippi practice. Independent Life also claims that the issue of its failure to activate the automatic premium loan provision of Peavy's policy when he failed to pay the premium was beyond the scope of the pleadings. Even under the relaxed notice pleading of Rule 8, this issue was, as Independent Life argues, beyond the scope of the pleadings. Nevertheless, it was not error to allow the proof, since Rule 15(b), Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that [i]f evidence is objected to at trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so freely when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission of such evidence would prejudice him in the maintaining of his action or defense upon the merits... . The court shall be liberal in granting permission to amend when justice so requires. Finally, Independent Life complains of the admission of evidence of its net worth, which was not alleged in the complaint. Peavy, in his complaint, prayed for punitive damages, so the evidence of net worth was clearly relevant. A defendant's net worth is normally ascertained during discovery, and to require that such a matter be included in the complaint would contravene the purpose of Rule 8. This argument is actually another verse of Independent Life's theme song: the assertion that punitive damages are inappropriate in this case. We have disposed of that issue.