Opinion ID: 1603927
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in finding audubon to be an agent for a disclosed principal versus a co-principal with mwua.

Text: ¶ 8. In reviewing a trial court's grant or denial of summary judgment, the well-established standard of review is de novo. One South, Inc. v. Hollowell, 963 So.2d 1156, 1160 (Miss.2007) ( citing Hubbard v. Wansley, 954 So.2d 951, 956 (Miss. 2007)). Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A summary judgment motion is only properly granted when no genuine issue of material fact exists. Jackson Clinic for Women, P.A. v. Henley, 965 So.2d 643, 649 (Miss.2007) ( citing PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. v. Lowery, 909 So.2d 47, 49 (Miss.2005); Miller v. Meeks, 762 So.2d 302, 304 (Miss. 2000)). [T]he evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made. One South, 963 So.2d at 1160; Green v. Allendale Planting Co., 954 So.2d 1032, 1037 (Miss.2007) ( quoting Price v. Purdue Pharma Co., 920 So.2d 479, 483 (Miss. 2006)). The moving party has the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact(s) exists, and the non-moving party must be given the benefit of the doubt concerning the existence of a material fact. Id. ( quoting Howard v. City of Biloxi, 943 So.2d 751, 754 (Miss.Ct.App. 2006)). ¶ 9. The Fontes assert that Audubon was a co-principal [4] with MWUA, and therefore, Audubon can be held liable under a negligence standard. [5] Audubon was acting as the servicing insurer for MWUA at the time of Hurricane Katrina. As a servicing insurer, Audubon provided service on MWUA policies by issuing policies on behalf of MWUA, adjusting claims, and providing full claim supervision. MWUA owned the files, records, and data obtained or created by Audubon in performance of its duties for MWUA. However, the contract between Audubon and MWUA, the Servicing Insurer Agreement, does not provide MWUA with surmountable control over Audubon's operations and obligations under the contract. This Court has adopted a non-exclusive list of factors for determining whether an agency relationship exists: Whether the principal master has the power to terminate the contract at will; whether he has the power to fix the price in payment for the work, or vitally controls the manner and time of payment; whether he furnishes the means and appliances for the work; whether he has control of the premises; whether he furnishes the materials upon which the work is done and receives the output thereof, the contractor dealing with no other person in respect to the output; whether he has the right to prescribe and furnish the details of the kind and character of work to be done; whether he has the right to supervise and inspect the work during the course of employment; whether he has the right to direct the details of the manner in which the work is to be done; whether he has the right to employ and discharge the subemployees and to fix their compensation; and whether he is obliged to pay the wages of said employees. Miller v. R.B. Wall Oil Co., 970 So.2d 127, 131 (Miss.2007) ( quoting Kisner v. Jackson, 159 Miss. 424, 132 So. 90, 91 (1931)). Control and the rights to control are key to determining whether an agency relationship exists. Id. at 132 ( citing Fruchter v. Lynch Oil Co., 522 So.2d 195, 199 (Miss.1988)). Although the contract between MWUA and Audubon gives MWUA ownership of all files, records, and data obtained or created by Audubon, it does not give MWUA the explicit authority to supervise Audubon's work under the contract. Thus, Audubon is given a great deal of autonomy in performing its duties. As such, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether MWUA had the necessary control over Audubon required for a principal-agent relationship to exist. ¶ 10. Ultimately, this is an issue for a jury to decide. The determination of whether an agency relationship exists is a question of fact for the jury, and not a question of law. Id. ( citing Kight v. Sheppard Bldg. Supply, Inc., 537 So.2d 1355, 1358 (Miss.1989)); Elder v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 516 So.2d 231, 236 (Miss.1987). Therefore, as to this issue, we must remand this case to the trial court for determination by a jury.