Opinion ID: 865311
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether com pensatory damages were

Text: CONSISTENT WITH ALLEGED DAMAGES, AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THE RESULT OF JURY CONFUSION OR THE PRODUCT OF BIAS, PASSION AND PREJUDICE ¶19. Horace Mann argues in its brief that “a plaintiff cannot recover compensatory damages in an amount exceeding the loss she actually incurred.” Nunaley’s expert witness, James Henley, testified that Nunaley’s damages were $4,156.94. Henley testified that Nunaley was entitled to “lost opportunity” damages because she could have invested the money she spent on premiums rather than pay for a policy she supposedly would not have purchased under all of the circumstances. ¶20. However, Nunaley has incurred no damages at all. In order to prove a claim for negligent misrepresentation, Nunaley must prove the following elements: (1) a misrepresentation or omission of a fact; (2) that the representation or omission is material or significant; (3) that the person/entity charged with the negligence failed to exercise that degree of diligence and expertise the public is entitled to expect of such persons/entities; (4) that the plaintiff reasonably relied upon the misrepresentation or omission; and (5) that the plaintiff suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of such reasonable reliance. Skrmetta v. Bayview Yacht Club, Inc., 806 So. 2d 1120, 1124 (Miss. 2002) (citing Spragins v. Sunburst Bank, 605 So. 2d 777, 780 (Miss. 1992)); Bank of Shaw v. Posey, 573 So. 2d 1355, 1360 (Miss. 1990) (citing Berkline Corp. v. Bank of Mississippi, 453 So. 2d 699, 702 (Miss. 1984)). 12 ¶21. Nunaley unquestionably fails to prove the fifth element – that she suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of such reasonable reliance on any perceived negligent misrepresentation which Hawkins/Horace Mann made to her. Nunaley, to this day, has in effect a policy that will pay $110,295 in the event of the death of one of her children and she has made no claim on her insurance policy because, thankfully, neither of her children have died. The record is simply devoid of any proof that Nunaley has suffered damages as a result of any negligent misrepresentation by the defendants. Accordingly, we find that Nunaley cannot prevail on her claim of negligent misrepresentation. ¶22. Since Nunaley has suffered no compensatory damages, it necessarily follows that she is not entitled to an award of punitive damages. Bradfield v. Schwartz, 936 So. 2d 931, 938 (Miss. 2006); Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(c) (Supp. 2006). We thus likewise find this issue asserted by Horace Mann to have merit.