Opinion ID: 1112389
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Issue A. Did the court erroneously find the Louisiana Direct Action Statute inapplicable in Mississippi and erroneously dismiss the Fords' case with prejudice.

Text: The question posed requires this Court to determine first whether the Louisiana Direct Action Statute addresses procedural or substantive law. Some basic considerations need review. First, Mississippi applies its own procedural law to actions filed in the courts of this state. Lee v. Swain Bldg. Materials Co., 529 So.2d 188, 190 (Miss. 1988). See also, Cook v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 241 Miss. 371, 128 So.2d 363 (1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 898, 82 S.Ct. 176, 7 L.Ed.2d 94 (1961); Wright v. Jacobs, 228 Miss. 641, 89 So.2d 708 (1956). [2] Thus, Mississippi's six (6) year statute of limitations for tort actions, Miss. Code § 15-1-49 (1972) [3] , applies to a Mississippi lawsuit even though the tort occurred in Louisiana. Swain Bldg. Materials Co., 529 So.2d at 190. Secondly, to determine whether to apply the substantive law of Mississippi or the substantive law of Louisiana to this case, this Court applies the center of gravity test enumerated in Boardman v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 470 So.2d 1024 (Miss. 1985). The center of gravity test focuses on the contacts between the parties and the forum. In Boardman, this Court stated: In 1968, this state's choice of law rules were modified to embrace the center of gravity concept. Mitchell v. Craft, 211 So.2d 509, 512 (Miss. 1968); Craig v. Columbus Compress & Warehouse Co., 210 So.2d 645, 649 (Miss. 1968). In cases where a question is presented as to whether the substantive rules of decision should be our own or those of some other state, Mitchell and Craig committed us to a determination of which state has the most substantial contacts with the parties and the subject of the action. Embracing the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws, § 6, Mitchell enumerated a number of factors relevant to a choice of law determination. These include: (1) the needs of the interstate and international systems; (2) the relevant policies of the forum; (3) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relevant interest of those states in the determination of a particular issue; (4) the protection of justified expectations; (5) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law; (6) certainty, predictability, and uniformity of results; (7) ease and determination in application of law to be applied. Id. at 1031. In the instant case, all of the factors discussed above point towards the application of Louisiana substantive law. Both parties involved in the accident were Louisiana residents, the accident occurred in Louisiana, and the contracts of insurance were written in Louisiana. Ford brings this case under the Louisiana Direct Action Statute, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22:655 (1989). [4] In order for this statute to apply in Mississippi, this Court must determine it to be the substantive, and not procedural, law of Louisiana. The Fords maintain that the Louisiana direct action statute is substantive Louisiana law and must be applied by this Court under the Boardman center of gravity test. The Louisiana Supreme Court at one time considered its direct action statute to be substantive law, see West v. Monroe Bakery, 217 La. 189, 191, 46 So.2d 122, 123 (1950), but has since effectively overruled this decision. See Home Ins. Co. v. Highway Ins. Underwriters, 222 La. 540, 548, 62 So.2d 828, 831 (1952). This Court, however, has unambiguously held Louisiana's direct action statute to be procedural in nature. In Cook v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 241 Miss. 371, 128 So.2d 363 (1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 898, 82 S.Ct. 176, 7 L.Ed.2d 94 (1961), this Court ruled that the direct action statute was procedural and remedial in nature and thus not applicable to a Mississippi contract of insurance: We now therefore reaffirm the case of McArthur v. Maryland Casualty Company, [184 Miss. 663, 186 So. 305] [1939] and hold that insofar as this State is concerned the law of Louisiana, Act No. 55, Laws of 1930, is procedural and remedial and the law of the forum, that is to say, Mississippi, will be applied. Cook, 241 Miss. at 380, 128 So.2d at 368. This Court again found the direct action statute to be procedural in Goodin v. Gulf Coast Oil Company, 241 Miss. 862, 133 So.2d 623, 624 (1961) and in McNeal v. Administrator of the Estate of McNeal, 254 So.2d 521, 524-25 (Miss. 1971). In Goodin, this Court ruled that a direct action could not be brought against an insurance company in Mississippi, even when the accident occurred in Louisiana: It was claimed that the laws of Louisiana permitted a direct suit against the insurer, and that, therefore, suit could be brought in Mississippi directly against the insurance companies. This matter has been before this Court and was definitely settled in the case of Cook v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. The action of the lower court in dismissing the case insofar as the two insurance companies were concerned was correct. Goodin, 241 Miss. at 865, 133 So.2d at 624. In McNeal, this Court affirmed Cook and stated: The argument of the appellants in the instant case that we should follow the Louisiana law in the trial of this case is not well taken for two reasons. First, it may be said as a general rule in conflicts of law cases that foreign laws will not be given effect when to do so would be contrary to the settled policy of the forum. McNeal, 254 So.2d at 524. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has also found Louisiana's direct action statute to be procedural in nature. Pearson v. Globe Indemnity Co., 311 F.2d 517, 518 (5th Cir.1962) (Mississippi's law and policy are clear; the Louisiana Direct Action Statute does not operate extra-territorially in Mississippi.); Moore v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 808 F.2d 1147, 1154 (5th Cir.1987) (The right to maintain a direct action against an insurer... . is considered a remedial right and is, therefore, governed by the law of the forum... . Such an action is clearly barred by Mississippi law.). The trial judge correctly found the Louisiana Direct Action Statute to be procedural and therefore inapplicable in Mississippi and did not err in granting State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment.