Opinion ID: 1707287
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: should the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine allow the issues decided by the supreme court in simpson i to be re-litigated?

Text: Gloria Simpson first argues that though this Court, in Simpson I, rendered judgment against her on the issues of extracontractual and punitive damages, she should have been able to re-litigate those issues in Simpson II. She argues that while Simpson I would normally be recognized as the law of the case for all subsequent proceedings, there are exceptions to this rule, and her case fits these exceptions. The law of the case doctrine, as recognized by this Court, is as follows: The doctrine of the law of the case is similar to that of former adjudication, relates entirely to questions of law, and is confined in its operation to subsequent proceedings in the case. Whatever is once established as the controlling legal rule of decision, between the same parties in the same case, continues to be the law of the case, so long as there is a similarity of facts. This principle expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has previously been decided. It is founded on public policy and the interests of orderly and consistent judicial procedure. Mississippi College v. May, 241 Miss. 359, 366, 128 So.2d 557, 558 (1961). The rule is distinct from the rule of stare decisis and it is not a limitation upon the power of the court. Continental Turpentine and Rosin Co. v. Gulf Naval Stores Co., 244 Miss. 465, 479, 142 So.2d 200, 206-207 (1962). But if the facts are different, so that the principles of law announced on the first appeal are not applicable, as where there are material changes in the evidence, pleadings or findings, a prior decision is not conclusive upon questions presented on the subsequent appeal. Continental Turpentine, 244 Miss. at 480, 142 So.2d at 207. One further exception to the doctrine can be found in Brewer v. Browning, 115 Miss. 358, 364, 76 So. 267, 269 (1917), where this Court stated: We do not think, however, that this rule is so fixed and binding upon the court that it may not depart from its former decision on a subsequent appeal if the former decision in its judgment after mature consideration is erroneous and wrongful and would lead to unjust results. Where the facts are the same, and where there has been no change of conditions or situations as that a change of decision would work wrong and injustice, the court may, on the subsequent appeal, correct its former decision where it is manifestly wrong. Gloria Simpson also relies on the federal version of the doctrine, which varies slightly from the doctrine announced by this Court. The Fifth Circuit rule on the doctrine can be found in White v. Murtha, 377 F.2d 428, 431-432 (5th Cir.1967): While the `law of the case' doctrine is not an inexorable command, a decision of a legal issue or issues by an appellate court establishes the `law of the case' and must be followed in all subsequent proceedings in the same case in the trial court or on a later appeal in the appellate court, unless the evidence on a subsequent trial was substantially different, controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues, or the decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice. See also Morrow v. Dillard, 580 F.2d 1284 (5th Cir.1978) (citing White ). Put another way, the mandate issued by an appellate court is binding on the trial court on remand, unless the case comes under one of the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine. This mandate rule is a specific application of the law of the case doctrine. Leggett v. Badger, 798 F.2d 1387 (11th Cir.1986). Because a question of law is presented, this Court conducts de novo review of the circuit court decision not to reopen issues decided in Simpson I. UHS-Qualicare, Inc. v. Gulf Coast Community Hospital, Inc., 525 So.2d 746, 754 (Miss. 1987).
Gloria Simpson first alleges that State Farm either unintentionally or intentionally doctored certain photographs so as to place her claim under this exception to the law of the case. The alleged manipulation involved certain photographs, introduced in Simpson II as Defendant's Exhibit 15, and introduced in Simpson I as part of the SEA Fire Analysis, Plaintiff's Exhibit 8, and as part of Plaintiff's Exhibit 10. The photographs in question were taken by Phil Hampton, a fire investigator for Systems Engineering Associates, on August 28, 1978. Mr. Hampton was employed by State Farm and testified for State Farm in both trials. Hampton was accompanied to the Simpson home that day by Oren Haddock, a State Farm employee who investigated the fire. According to Gloria Simpson, this Court in Simpson I relied heavily on these photographs in finding that State Farm had an arguable reason to deny the claim, and could escape liability for punitive damages. It is true that this Court did list [t]he photographs taken by Systems Engineering Associates which graphically depict the burn pattern as one of ten items which State Farm was able to consider in deciding to deny the Simpsons' claim on November 1, 1978. Simpson I, 477 So.2d at 251-252. The allegation that the photographs making up Defendant's Exhibit 15 were not what they appeared to be came from Barry Jones, called by the Simpsons as a rebuttal witness in Simpson II. Mr. Jones was shown Defendant's Exhibit 15, and in response stated that [i]t appears to me that this photograph was shot while this area was still wet... . I don't believe this particular photograph actually depicts the scene as it was. It appears that the pattern may have been enhanced by the liquid use[d] to clear the area. Mr. Jones could not remember when he visited the fire scene, but it was several years after the fire. Jones stated on cross-examination that he believe[d] that particular pattern is probably water that was on the sink at the time of the photograph. When asked if Phil Hampton would use water to simulate a burn pattern, Jones said that he might have done it to enhance the patterns he was seeing. When asked if Norm Cowart, Deputy State Fire Marshal, would use water to try to alter the appearance of the pattern, Jones said that [m]ost fire investigators pour water on areas to clear them out. Now, if the photograph was shot while the water was still there I don't know if that's an intentional act or it's just part of their investigative technique. I personally don't do that, but someone else may. Gloria Simpson claims that Jones's testimony shows deceit, misrepresentation, and fraud on the part of State Farm. We find the testimony to be equivocal at best. The record shows that these disputed photographs were introduced in Simpson I. Mr. Jones was available as a witness in Simpson I but was never called. In Baumer v. United States, 685 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir.1982), the substantially different evidence was evidence which Baumer possessed during his first trial, but decided not to use. The 11th Circuit, in rejecting this as an exception to the law of the case, stated: There is nothing in the record to indicate that the evidence produced at the hearing after remand was unavailable to the taxpayers during the first trial. The taxpayers simply chose not to produce that evidence. They chose their trial strategy, litigated accordingly, and lost. They are not now entitled to resurrect a previously abandoned issue. Baumer, 685 F.2d at 1321. In Simpson II, the photographs in question were introduced through Robert Bell, a consultant in failure analysis who investigated the fire for the Simpsons and testified for them. When Defendant's Exhibit 15 was introduced, Mr. Bell was asked if he had taken any photographs which showed the same dark pattern. Bell answered, The same dark pattern. I'm sure that I do. And I saw that, but I do not have those photographs handy. Bell agreed that the dark area was where the floor had been burned, although Bell asserted that the floor burned because the roof dumped in on it. Gloria Simpson claims that because State Farm did not call witnesses to rebut Jones's charge, there is a presumption that their testimony would not have been favorable to State Farm. Fuller v. Sloan, 230 So.2d 574, 576 (Miss. 1970). Whatever presumption may have arisen is not a strong one. Hampton and Cowart could have been questioned about this alleged fraud on cross-examination, and were not. Gloria Simpson also argues that a significant portion of her photographic evidence never reached this Court after the trial in Simpson, I. She specifically mentions Plaintiffs' Exhibits 1, 6, 7 and 10. Exhibit 1 is included in the record in Simpson I. The other three exhibits did not reach this Court. Exhibit 6 consisted of a board containing 15 photographs. Exhibit 7 consisted of a board containing 7 photographs. Exhibit 10 consisted of a board containing 8 photographs. The majority of the photographs in question were taken by Gerald Baxley, an arson investigator for the City of Pritchard, Alabama, who testified for the Simpsons in Simpson I. Baxley took the pictures between January 12 and approximately February 15, 1979. The other pictures making up Exhibit 10 were blowups from SEA Fire Analysis, which were available to this Court in Simpson I as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 8, already mentioned earlier. Gerald Baxley did not testify in Simpson II. Several of the photographs in question were re-introduced in the second trial. It does not appear that it was the Simpson's failure which caused these exhibits not to be sent. Gloria Simpson, therefore, argues that without this evidence this Court could not completely review and equitably decide Simpson I. Simpson I states that the Simpsons' claim was denied on November 21, 1978, and that State Farm decided to deny the claim on November 1, 1978. Simpson I, 477 So.2d at 250-251. The issue which involved review of photographic evidence was whether or not State Farm had an arguable basis, in law or fact, for denying the claim. The Simpson I analysis took into consideration the evidence which was available to State Farm at the time that this decision was made, apparently November 1, 1978. The question then appears to be one of relevance. We have reviewed the photographs in question and find that evidence which did not exist in November 1978, was not and is not relevant to this question of State Farm's arguable basis to deny the claim. Gloria Simpson has failed to show that the evidence presented in Simpson II was substantially new or different than that which was available in Simpson I.
As stated, the courts of this state have not yet recognized this exception to the law of the case doctrine. Because it is not dispositive, we discuss it but save the adoption of this exception for another case. According to Gloria Simpson, an important aspect of the law of bad faith changed between the time Simpson I was handed down by this Court and the trial in Simpson II. We view this assignment in the context of bad faith law between the time Simpson I was handed down, August 14, 1985, and the time of the second trial, October 27, 1986. See also Delano v. Kitch, 663 F.2d 990 (10th Cir.1981) (law of case doctrine must yield to a controlling decision between the first ruling and retrial). Prior to the decision in Simpson I, this Court had been implementing a procedure for submission of punitive damages to the jury in bad faith cases. The procedure was discussed in Reserve Life Insurance Co. v. McGee, 444 So.2d 803 (Miss. 1983). According to Reserve Life, the trial court would decide as a matter of law whether the insurer had an arguable reason to deny payment of the claim in question. An arguable reason to deny meant that the issue of punitive damages could not be submitted to the jury. The trial court's inability as a matter of law to find that there was an arguable reason to deny would send that issue to the jury. Submission of this question to the jury would be followed by another decision of law for the trial court, whether or not a punitive damages instruction was warranted. Reserve Life, 444 So.2d at 809. Reserve Life was followed by Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Miss. v. Campbell, 466 So.2d 833 (Miss. 1984). This Court granted a petition for rehearing in order to clarify its holding in Reserve Life. Campbell emphasized that the question of bad faith was not always one for the jury. A reasonably arguable basis for denial of the claim, in law or fact, would prevent the submission of the question of bad faith. It was further stated in Campbell: It can be argued with considerable persuasion that unless the trial judge grants a directed verdict to the insured plaintiff on the contract claim, then, as a matter of law, the insurance carrier has shown reasonably arguable basis to deny the claim; and, therefore, the carrier should never be subjected to the possibility of punitive damages based upon `bad faith.' There is compelling logic behind this argument and this would certainly appear to be true in the vast majority of cases. This criterion should ordinarily determine the answer to the question. Yet, the test is not infallible. Under some contrived or specious defense, an insurance carrier may be entitled to have the jury pass upon the issue of liability under the contract, yet not thereby insulate itself against a punitive damage claim based upon bad faith. There may be other reasons not yet encountered which will give an insurance carrier a defense on the contract itself, and yet nevertheless the carrier should be subject to a bad faith claim. Campbell, 466 So.2d at 843. Next came Simpson I. This Court reversed and rendered on punitive damages, finding that State Farm should have received a peremptory instruction on this issue. In doing so the Court repeated the rule from Campbell, that a directed verdict in favor of the insured on the contract claim should be in the majority of cases a reasonable prerequisite to punitive damages. Simpson I, 477 So.2d at 252. This was the state of the law at the time of Simpson I. Gloria Simpson's objection is that after the decisions of Campbell and Simpson, the law has evolved whereby punitive damages are allowed without first obtaining a directed verdict on contractual damages and are assessed when the insurer improperly investigates claims and arbitrarily denies them. Yet, it was in the directed verdict frame of mind that this Court decided in Simpson.  The bad faith cases decided by the Court between August 1985, and October 1986, included Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw, 483 So.2d 254 (Miss. 1985), National Life & Accident v. Miller, 484 So.2d 329 (Miss. 1985), Southern United Life Insurance Co. v. Caves, 481 So.2d 764 (Miss. 1985), Mississippi Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Todd, 492 So.2d 919 (Miss. 1986), Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Day, 487 So.2d 830 (Miss. 1986) and Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Tompkins, 490 So.2d 897 (Miss. 1986). As is stated in Simpson I, the requirement of a directed verdict for the insured on the contract claim before the issue of punitive damages may be submitted to the jury may be appropriate in the majority of cases, but there are exceptions. This requirement has been ignored in Bankers Life, Miller, and Tompkins. The procedure was followed in Caves and Todd, and was emphatically reaffirmed in Day. The trial judge did not err when he found that this exception to the law of the case doctrine was inapplicable to the case at bar.