Opinion ID: 1103241
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages

Text: ¶ 25. The majority affirms the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Valley Bank on the issue of punitive damages. The Court of Appeals found this decision in error and reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for a trial on the issue of punitive damages. The Court of Appeals had it right. ¶ 26. The foundation of the relationship between the bank and its customer is the bank's agreement to pay out the customer's money according to the customer's order, or as the Mississippi Bankers Association would have it, simply an armslength contractual relationship. This Court has held that to be eligible for damages in breach of contract cases, a plaintiff must show that the breach resulted from an intentional wrong or that the defendant acted with malice or gross/reckless disregard for the rights of others. Paracelsus Health Care Corp. v. Willard, 754 So.2d 437, 442(¶ 27) (Miss.1999) (citing Am. Funeral Assur. Co. v. Hubbs, 700 So.2d 283, 285 (Miss.1997)). Additionally, [p]unitive damages may be imposed for breach of contract where such breach is attended by intentional wrong, insult, abuse, or such gross negligence as amounts to an independent tort. Tideway Oil Programs, Inc. v. Serio, 431 So.2d 454, 465-66 (Miss. 1983). ¶ 27. Wise and her daughter allege that Valley Bank's branch manager informed them that the bank had a videotape that would show Wise withdrew the $1,500 in question on January 23, 1997. The two also allege that the branch manager told them he could show them the videotape in three days time if they requested. Wise testified that she was later informed by the branch manager that the videotape had been destroyed. Apparently, pursuant to Valley Bank's policy, the videotape for that date was destroyed prior to Wise's discovery of the money missing from her account. The branch manager denies having made those statements to Wise and her daughter. ¶ 28. As this Court has stated, [i]ssues of fact sufficient to require denial of a motion for summary judgment obviously are present where one party swears to one version of the matter and another says the opposite. City of Jackson v. Sutton, 797 So.2d 977, 979 (Miss.2001). Upon a motion for summary judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made. Id. Since Valley Bank was the moving party, the Court of Appeals correctly afforded Wise the benefit of the doubt in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact existed for the jury to decide. ¶ 29. The jury should be allowed to consider the issue of punitive damages if the trial judge determined under the totality of the circumstances and in light of defendant's aggregate conduct, that a reasonable, hypothetical juror could have identified either malice or gross disregard to the rights of others. Paracelsus Health Care Corp. v. Willard, 754 So.2d at 442(¶ 20). The Court of Appeals opined that if Wise's statements are taken as true, then the manager's statements regarding the video recording take on the appearance of an intentional, material misrepresentation and indicate that Valley Bank did not act in good faith throughout the course of its investigation, and I agree. ¶ 30. Because I would affirm the Court of Appeals' judgment, I dissent. EASLEY, J., JOINS THIS OPINION.