Opinion ID: 1722984
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the issue concerning compensatory damages

Text: State Farm objected to the granting of an instruction on compensatory damages. The instruction follows: If you find for the plaintiff, you should award damages in an amount that will put the plaintiffs, Robert and Gloria Simpson, in as good a position as they would have been had defendant, State Farm, not failed to fulfill its part of the contract. In addition to the $22,876.25 previously stated as contract damages, you may award such additional compensatory damages as you find from a preponderance of the evidence including, but not limited to the following: 1. Economic Loss. 2. Litigation Fees and Expenses reasonably incurred in defending the Federal Court cases filed against them. 3. Reasonable compensation for anxiety, worry, anger, indignity, and other mental and emotional distress suffered by the plaintiffs. No definite standard or method of calculation is prescribed by law by which to fix reasonable compensation for mental and emotional distress. Nor is the opinion of any witness required as to the amount of any such reasonable compensation. This instruction is not authorized by statute or case law. Additionally, as we comprehend it, the instruction does not require evidence as to some of the damages. Probably it could be reasonably stated this instruction led to compensatory damages in the sum of $227,123.75 (later reduced by a remittitur of $50,000.00). Be that as it may, in Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Wetherbee, 368 So.2d 829 (Miss. 1979), we pretermitted the question of compensatory damages. Therefore, it is not dispositive of the issue here. In Bellefonte Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 358 So.2d 387, 391 (Miss. 1978), we held the following concerning attorney's fees: As to attorney's fees, the rule in the absence of statute is that they are not recoverable unless the facts are of such gross or willful wrong as to justify the infliction of punitive damages. Cooper v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 186 Miss. 116, 188 So. 6 (1939); Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. v. Consumers' Ice & Power Co., 109 Miss. 43, 67 So. 657 (1915). As there is no applicable statute and because we are of the opinion the trial court did not err in denying punitive damages, it follows that an award of attorney's fees would not have been proper. The cases cited in support of the above statement, Cooper v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 186 Miss. 116, 188 So. 6 (1939), and Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. v. Consumers' Ice & Power Co., 109 Miss. 43, 67 So. 657 (1915), refer to the denial of attorneys fees in situations in which the facts were neither so gross nor willfully wrong to justify punitive damages, or where punitive damages were not pleaded. Attorneys fees are sought in this case through instruction P-5 concerning compensatory damages. As noted, this Court has restricted attorneys fees unauthorized by statute to the extreme cases justifying exemplary damages. Since we have held the present facts do not warrant a punitive damage instruction the award of compensatory damages including attorneys fees was erroneous. In view of this conclusion, the contention on cross-appeal that the trial court erroneously granted a remittitur of $50,000.00 becomes moot.