Opinion ID: 1667169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Suit against Delaney and Old South

Text: ¶ 16. Hood and HICO claimed that Delaney left his employ with HICO and began to solicit business for Zurich in an unethical manner. The complaint further charged that, even though Delaney was fully aware of the exclusive nature of the HICO/Titan contract, he nevertheless convinced St. Paul to allow Delaney/Old South to act as the agent of record for St. Paul when bidding to write public entity insurance for George County, Mississippi. ¶ 17. Additionally, the complaint alleged that Delaney and Old South had a fiduciary duty to act on behalf of HICO, as St. Paul's exclusive marketing force in the State of Mississippi, and that Delaney, while acting as an employee of Old South, intentionally and purposefully violated said duties.... ¶ 18. Finally, the complaint accused St. Paul, Delaney, Old South and others of engaging in a conspiracy to injure HICO and Hood. ¶ 19. Delaney and Old South answered the suit, denying any liability to the plaintiffs. Titan, USF & G and St. Paul filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, claiming that the Representative Agreement required the suit to be brought in Bexar County, Texas. The trial court denied the motion on March 24, 2000. ¶ 20. On August 11, 2000, Delaney and Old South filed a cross claim against St. Paul for the alleged wrongful actions of Carroll Hood, as an acting agent for [St. Paul]. Immediately thereafter, Hood and HICO amended their complaint to add a claim against Titan/St. Paul for wrongful termination. ¶ 21. Prior to trial, the rhetoric between Hood/HICO and Delaney/Old South began to soften, and they began to look toward St. Paul. Realizing it would be the prime target at trial, St. Paul began to circle the wagons. St. Paul filed a counterclaim against Hood and HICO, asserting a right under the Representative Agreement to be indemnified for any loss as a result of the cross claim filed by Delaney and Old South. ¶ 22. Trial began on November 28, 2000, but problems with the jury caused a delay until February 12, 2001. Two days into the trial, the trial court entered a forty-six page pretrial order. Eleven days into the trial, Delaney and Old South moved to amend their cross claim against St. Paul, to include violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 83-17-5. [10] St. Paul vigorously opposed the motion, claiming they were not prepared to defend a new claim of violation of the statute. Nevertheless, the motion was granted, and the trial court instructed the jury that violation of the statute could be used to impose liability against St. Paul, in favor of Old South. ¶ 23. In their testimony at trial, Hood and Delaney had little negative testimony to offer against the other. Indeed, before the conclusion of the trial, Hood/HICO and Delaney/Old South settled all claims between them. St. Paul requested the trial court to require disclosure of the terms of the settlement to the jury. The trial court refused. ¶ 24. The jury returned a verdict against St. Paul in favor of HICO in the amounts of $1.3 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages; against St. Paul in favor of Hood based on an emotional distress claim in the amount of $1.2 million in compensatory damages; against St. Paul in favor of Old South on the cross-claim in the amounts of $310,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. BancorpSouth received a defense verdict. ¶ 25. Titan, USF & G and St. Paul timely perfected an appeal to this Court. Six of the justices [11] currently serving on this Court declined to participate in deciding this case, leaving three justices [12] to review the appeal. Because our Constitution requires five justices for a quorum, an appointment of two special justices by the Governor was necessary to decide the case. Miss. Const. Art. 6, § 145B. This Court entered an Order dated May 25, 2004, requesting the appointments, and by letter dated and filed of record August 18, 2004, Governor Barbour appointed Judge Henry L. Lackey, Circuit Judge, Third Circuit Judicial District, and Judge R.I. Prichard, Circuit Judge, Fifteenth Circuit Judicial District, to serve as special justices to decide this case.