Opinion ID: 1652424
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: jury instruction 12, 13 and 14 were erroneously granted.

Text: ¶ 27. State Farm argues that Jury Instructions 12 and 13 were misleading. Jury Instruction 12 instructed the jury to not consider any evidence obtained by State Farm after the claim was denied, given that this State's bad faith law considers the denial of claims based on the information that the insurer had at the time the denial was made. Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Crenshaw, 483 So.2d 254, 273 (Miss.1985). State Farm argues, however, that the instruction had the potential to confuse the jury with regard to the separate issue of whether State Farm conducted a reasonable investigation (discussed in Instruction 13) in that it might preclude its consideration of post-denial expert testimony on which State Farm relied. ¶ 28. Instructions 12 and 13 deal with separate issues, and this Court concludes that any possible confusion that may have resulted on the part of the jury is speculative. Instruction 12 provides that the jury is to limit its consideration to the issue of whether State Farm had an arguable reason for denying the claim, while Instruction 13 deals with the different issue of the reasonableness of State Farm's investigation. State Farm also argues that Instruction 13 does not advise the jury that grossly negligent or similar conduct must be demonstrated in order to justify an award of punitive damages. It is clear, however, that this information was provided in Instructions 15 and 16. ¶ 29. State Farm argues that Instruction 14 was also in error, in that this instruction, while noting that an arguable reason exists when the denial of the claim is a result of mere forgetfulness, oversight, or simple negligence does not allow the jury to consider a deliberate decision to deny a claim based on evidence sufficient to create a jury issue, but insufficient to persuade the jury. Our conclusion above is that the fact that the existence of an arguable reason is presented to the jury does not preclude jury consideration of the issue of punitive damages. The issue of punitive damages is presented to the discretion of the jury and never required of it. Thus, this jury was free to decide both whether there was an arguable reason and whether punitive damages were warranted pursuant to Instruction 15, 16, 17 and 18. ¶ 30. AFFIRMED. SULLIVAN and PITTMAN, P.JJ., and McRAE, J., concur. PRATHER, C.J., dissents with separate written opinion joined by MILLS, J. WALLER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with separate written opinion joined by JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., J. SMITH, J., not participating.