Opinion ID: 1868710
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: this punitive damages award violates dixie's right to due process.

Text: Here, Dixie attacks the constitutionality of Mississippi's punitive damages scheme. The National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII) as Amicus Curiae filed a brief urging this Court to use the case sub judice as a vehicle to articulate standards and procedures for juries and the courts in Mississippi to utilize in awarding and evaluating punitive damages. To support their arguments, both Dixie and NAII rely extensively on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 113 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991), wherein the Court expressed concern over the constitutionality of Mississippi's system of awarding and reviewing punitive damages. NAII also significantly relies on Eichenseer v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 1377 (5th Cir.1991) to support its argument. There is no need to outline all the arguments presented by Dixie and NAII because this Court in Ivy v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 612 So.2d 1108 (Miss. 1992), decided after both Haslip and Eichenseer, held that Mississippi's punitive damages scheme passes constitutional muster under Haslip. Our decision in Ivy is directly on point here. This issue is therefore without merit. [1] For some reason in subpart C-2 of this issue Dixie complains that the instructions dealing with punitive damages presented to the jury in the case sub judice were vague in defining what acts would justify an award of punitive damages. Dixie made no such objection at trial; therefore, the issue is not properly preserved for appeal. Arledge v. McFatter, 605 So.2d 781, 787 (Miss. 1992); Young v. Robinson, 538 So.2d 781, 783 (Miss. 1989); Shell Oil Co. v. Murrah, 493 So.2d 1274, 1276 (Miss. 1986).