Opinion ID: 1659203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether gulf guaranty's actions justify an award of punitive damages?

Text: Finally, Gulf Guaranty argues that the award of punitive damages in this case was inappropriate. In support of this argument, Gulf Guaranty states that it had a legitimate, or at least an arguable, reason for denying the claim. There is no evidence that the conduct of any officer, agent or employee of Gulf Guaranty was in reckless disregard of the insured's rights. Indeed, the award of punitive damages is appropriate in breach of contract cases where there is a showing of willful or malicious wrong or gross negligence or reckless disregard for the rights of others. Peoples Bank and Trust Co. v. Cermack, 658 So.2d 1352, 1361 (Miss. 1995). However, [t]he award of punitive damages, along with the amount of such are within the discretion of the trier of fact. Id. Therefore, this issue was inappropriate for summary judgment, and the award of punitive damages should have been submitted to a jury. Nonetheless, the trial court, in determining if the issue should be submitted to the jury, must `decide whether, under the totality of the circumstances and viewing the defendant's conduct in the aggregate, a reasonable hypothetical trier of fact could have found either malice or gross neglect or reckless disregard.' Id. (quoting Colonial Mortg. Co., Inc., v. Lee, 525 So.2d 804, 808 (Miss. 1988)). Therefore, the issue of punitive damages is remanded to the trial court for trial on the merits  in the light of these legal principles.