Opinion ID: 2651525
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: March 29, 2008-July 29, 2008 (~4 months)

Text: State Farm argues that it paid James’s UM claims “in an attempt to resolve and streamline issues of dispute in this case.” The record contains little evidence of State Farm’s investigative actions during this time period because State Farm’s claims file terminates on September 27, 2007. The evidence in the record shows that James filed suit against State Farm on October 23, 2007. On March 28, 2008, State Farm received Staggs’s clarification about his medical records, although State Farm claims this clarification only served to create further confusion. There is no evidence in the record that State Farm received any additional information about James’s medical claims between March 28, 2008 and July 29, 2008, when State Farm paid James’s claims in full.10 9 James contends that this review was improper because the Injury Claim Trainer who evaluated the records was not a medical doctor. However, James has provided no authority to support her claim, so she has waived this argument. See Fed R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (“The appellant’s brief must contain . . . citations to the authorities . . . .”); see also Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004) (collecting citations) (“Failure adequately to brief an issue on appeal constitutes waiver of that argument.”). 10 For example, Staggs was not deposed until January 2009. 18 Case: 11-60458 Document: 00512514313 Page: 19 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 No. 11-60458 “[A]n insured’s filing of a suit on the claim does not suspend the insurer’s obligation to promptly pay claims that are admittedly owed.” Jeffrey Jackson, Miss. Ins. Law & Pract. § 10.2 (2012). There is no evidence in the record that State Farm received any additional information from James after March 28, 2008, yet State Farm waited an additional four months before it tendered payment. State Farm has not advanced an explanation for this delay nor presented any evidence of additional investigative actions it undertook during this time period, even though it has had ample opportunity to do so over the course of this lengthy litigation. Therefore, we hold that James has met her burden by raising a fact issue regarding whether State Farm had a legitimate or arguable basis for delaying its payment during this time period. In summary, this case falls far short of any standard of prompt handling by either side. Compounding this delay is that State Farm’s summary judgment motion lay dormant in the district court for over two years. It is inexplicable that an accident that occurred in February 2006 has not moved past the preliminary stages of litigation by the Spring of 2013. All parties will be best served by the expeditious resolution of this case. After our careful review of the lengthy summary judgment record, we hold that there is a question of fact as to whether State Farm had an arguable or legitimate basis for its delay. Because James has raised fact issues on her bad faith claim, she is entitled to present her claim to a finder of fact upon remand.11 Under Mississippi law punitive damages are only warranted if State Farm acted 11 The dissent asserts that the record shows “at most [] mere negligence” on the part of State Farm and that negligence alone is insufficient to support a trial on compensatory damages. Post, at 4. Neither party asserted that State Farm’s delay was due to negligence. Therefore, we have not considered this issue, nor do we express an opinion on it. Our opinion holds that James has raised an issue of fact regarding whether State Farm has an arguable or legitimate basis for some of its payment delay. When James presents her claim to a fact finder, our opinion does not preclude State Farm from arguing that its delay was attributable to mere negligence. It is for the fact finder to determine whether James is entitled to punitive damages—and if so, in what amount—given State Farm’s delays. 19 Case: 11-60458 Document: 00512514313 Page: 20 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 No. 11-60458 with “actual malice, gross negligence, which evinces a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or committed actual fraud.” See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(a). In light of our holding that there is some evidence that State Farm lacked an arguable or legitimate basis for delay we remand for the district court to consider in the first instance whether this delay was negligent or the result of “actual malice, gross, negligence, which evinces a wilful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or committed actual fraud.” See id.