Opinion ID: 2193210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Sue Additional Defendants

Text: Appellant argues that Donovan failed to include all potentially liable defendants in her suit against Jackson National. She claims that several parties could have been sued either under MISS.CODE ANN. § 83-17-1 (1972), [13] which (she maintains) imposed liability on agents in insurance matters who had knowledge of information also possessed by their principal, or under the 1985 Rules and Regulations Governing Reportable Diseases of the Mississippi State Department of Health (Mississippi Health Rules), which (she contends) imposed a duty to report to state officials the results of tests for communicable diseases. [14] She concludes that, in light of these statutes and regulations, the insurance agent who accepted the Deramuses' application for additional life insurance, the company whose employees drew her husband's blood, the laboratory which later tested it, and the insurance company's physician who knew of the results should have been joined as parties in her suit against Jackson National. The insurance agent who handled appellant's application for insurance, Oscar Arinder, cannot be held liable under the agency theory advanced by appellant under MISS.CODE ANN. § 83-17-1. In the first place, there is no evidence in the record before us indicating that he had any knowledge of Mr. Deramus' infection. See Doe v. Jackson Nat'l Life Insurance Co., 944 F.Supp. at 490 (stating that Arinder asked Jackson National about the specific results of [Mr. Deramus'] medical examination... but was unable to obtain the information). Furthermore, even assuming that Jackson National's knowledge of those test results might be attributed to its agent, Mr. Arinder (a dubious proposition, legally and factually, on this record), the United States District Court held that Jackson National, as the principal, had no legal duty to inform Mr. Deramus of those results. Id. at 496-497. The District Court's ruling on that point, later affirmed by the Fifth Circuit, is not subject to review by this court. Appellant's argument that an agent owes a duty when the principal does not is contrary to well-settled principles of agency law. See, e.g., PYCA Industries, Inc. v. Harrison County Waste Water Management District, 177 F.3d 351, 378 (5th Cir.1999); Wood v. State, 245 Miss. 103, 146 So.2d 546, 551 (1962). Thus, absent extraordinary circumstances not present here, Mr. Arinder would not be liable to appellant as an agent of Jackson National because Jackson National owed Mr. Deramus no duty of disclosure. The same can be said about Dr. Lewis Stewart, Jr., the physician at Jackson National who received the test results from the laboratory. While he certainly had knowledge of what the laboratory found, Jackson National, as his principal, did not have a duty to disclose those results to either Mr. or Mrs. Deramus. Doe v. Jackson Nat'l Life Insurance Co., 944 F.Supp. at 496-497. Dr. Stewart, like Mr. Arinder, could not legally owe a duty as an agent when his principal owed no such duty. See PYCA Industries, 177 F.3d at 379; Wood, 146 So.2d at 551. Appellant also argues that Donovan should have sued the facility that drew her husband's blood, Examination Management Services (EMS). However, there is no evidence in the record that EMS ever had knowledge of Mr. Deramus' test results, which under appellant's reasoning might trigger a potential duty to inform. [15] On the contrary, EMS was responsible only for drawing Mr. Deramus' blood sample and forwarding it to the laboratory for testing. There has been no showing that EMS or any of its employees ever knew, or even saw, the subsequent test results. In addition, testimony by Mrs. Deramus shows that she did not know whether EMS was aware of her husband's test results, [16] and counsel for appellant admitted to the trial judge that we don't know as a matter of certainty whether EMS knew what the results were. Moreover, even if it could be shown that EMS  as Jackson National's assumed temporary agent  knew about the test results, the law does not impose liability on an agent if the principal is not liable, absent extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, no possible theory of liability could justify naming EMS as a defendant in the suit against Jackson National. [17] Appellant further contends that the laboratory that performed the tests should have been named as a defendant because, under the Mississippi Health Rules, those conducting tests for certain communicable diseases have a duty to report the results to the State Department of Health. We assume arguendo that if the test had been performed in Mississippi, the laboratory would have had to turn the results over to state officials. However, no such duty arose here because Mr. Deramus' tests were performed by the Home Office Research Laboratory, which is located in Kansas, beyond the reach of the Mississippi Health Rules. [18] Because each of the parties identified by appellant would not have been liable under any of the legal theories that she asserts, the trial court's grant of summary judgment on these claims was correct. [19]