Opinion ID: 1765925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the court err in its assessment of punitive damages?

Text: Saxton cites no authority to support this argument and our rule in this situation is as clear as it is familiar. Notwithstanding this procedural bar, we will address the merits of Saxton's argument. Saxton makes no argument that punitive damages are not warranted. Instead, Saxton argues that the legal fees awarded as part of punitive damages were not properly allocated between the legal services rendered on behalf of the plaintiffs against B & S Services and A.E. Saxton, and the legal services rendered on behalf of the plaintiffs against R & S Development and Randall Saxton. Punitive damages may be awarded as punishment for trespass where the proof shows the trespass was willful, grossly negligent or wanton. Seismic Petroleum Services, Inc. v. Ryan, 450 So.2d 437, 440 (Miss. 1984). Furthermore, attorneys fees may be included as part of an award of punitive damages. Grisham v. Hinton, 490 So.2d 1201, 1206 (Miss. 1986); Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Miss. v. Campbell, 466 So.2d 833, 845 (Miss. 1984). The chancellor awarded the plaintiffs punitive damages against Randall Saxton and R & S Development in the total amount of $29,800.99; $19,800.99 was awarded directly to Robert Hederman as reimbursement for attorneys fees and litigation expenses. The asserted error lies in the failure to apportion the fees between all original defendants. This is indeed a novel question. Randall Saxton and R & S Development are not entitled to seek statutory contribution from A.E. Saxton and B & S Services for a proportionate share of the legal expenses levied against them, even though these defendants are joint tortfeasors and in pari delicto, because they are not joint judgment debtors as required by the statute. See Miss. Code Ann., § 85-5-5 (1972). Conversely, there is the rule that uncertainty as to the amount, and arguably as to the allocation of damages will not preclude the plaintiff's right to recover. See Johnston v. Safeco, supra. By analogy to State Farm Mutual Auto. v. Commercial Union Insurance, 394 So.2d 890 (Miss. 1981), the latter rule controls. In State Farm, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company sued Commercial Union Insurance Company in chancery court to recover attorneys fees incurred in the defense of two circuit court actions which arose out of an automobile-train collision. The chancellor found that State Farm was entitled to be reimbursed for attorneys fees incurred in the defense of one action, but denied recovery because the fees had not been properly allocated between the two suits. Commercial Union had a clear duty to defend in the circuit court actions, and when it failed to do so, State Farm, as the secondary carrier, fulfilled Commercial Union's obligations. Therefore, State Farm was clearly entitled to all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in defending the circuit court action. In State Farm, as in the instant case, there is no question that the actions of the defendants caused monetary damage to the plaintiffs. In particularly applicable language, we said, [t]his is not a cause of speculation and conjecture as to whether there was monetary damage, but allocation of an admitted amount. Id. Applying the general rule as to proof of damages, this Court held that fees should have been awarded notwithstanding the uncertainty of allocation. Id. at 894-95. Randall Saxton and R & S Development cannot escape liability for that part of the punitive damage award related to legal fees and expenses simply because those fees and expenses are not precisely allocated between all of the joint tortfeasors. A.E. Saxton and B & S Services paid their proportionate share by way of settlement. Furthermore, a remand for precise allocation would cause the appellants to incur additional fees and expenses. Any reduction in the amount of fees originally assessed against Randall Saxton and R & S Development would be substantially, if not totally, offset by the amount of fees and expenses they would incur upon the remand. The plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to afford a reasonable basis for estimating the amount of legal fees and expenses incurred in pursuing their causes of action against the joint tortfeasors; for this, they should not be denied a recovery. This assignment of error is without merit.