policy claim in Mississippi

1985Generally speaking, if the insurer has at trial denied liability on the policy — asserted lack of coverage, an affirmative defense, or whatever — and if the state of the evidence after all parties have rested is such that under our familiar rules the factual issue may not be taken from the jury, see, e.g., Paymaster Oil Mill Co. v. Mitchell, 319 So.2d 652, 657 (Miss. 1975), then the plaintiff insured is not entitled to a peremptory instruction on the underlying policy claim and as a matter of law the insurance company becomes insulated from a bad faith refusal claim.

1984A. Generally speaking, if the insurer has at trial denied liability on the policy — asserted lack of coverage, an affirmative defense, or whatever — and if the state of the evidence after all parties have rested is such that under our familiar rules the factual issue may not be taken from the jury, see e.g., Paymaster Oil Mill Co. v. Mitchell, 319 So.2d 652, 657 (Miss. 1975), then the plaintiff insured is not entitled to a peremptory instruction on the underlying policy claim and as a matter of law the insurance company becomes insulated from a bad faith refusal claim.

2013To prove willful misconduct by showing such violation of the policy, the employer must prove both the existence of the policy and the violation thereof by the employee.” Clark, 13 So.3d at 871 (¶ 11) (citing Halbert v. City of Columbus, 722 So.2d 522, 527 (¶ 20) (Miss. 1998)). ¶ 18.

2012When proving an employee violated an employer’s policy sufficient to disqualify him or her from receiving unemployment benefits, “the employer must prove both the existence of the policy and the violation thereof by the employee.” Clark, 13 So.3d at 871 (¶ 11) (citing Halbert, 722 So.2d at 527 (¶ 20)).

2013To prove willful misconduct by showing such violation of the policy, the employer must prove both the existence of the policy and the violation thereof by the employee.” Clark, 13 So.3d at 871 (¶ 11) (citing Halbert v. City of Columbus, 722 So.2d 522, 527 (¶ 20) (Miss. 1998)). ¶ 18.

2012When proving an employee violated an employer’s policy sufficient to disqualify him or her from receiving unemployment benefits, “the employer must prove both the existence of the policy and the violation thereof by the employee.” Clark, 13 So.3d at 871 (¶ 11) (citing Halbert, 722 So.2d at 527 (¶ 20)).

2010Dep't of Transp., 744 So.2d 256, 260 (Miss.1999) ( quoting United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 322 , 111 S.Ct. 1267 , 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991) (adopting the two-part policy test)). [10] Id. [11] Bridges v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist., 793 So.2d 584, 588 (Miss.2001) ( citing Jones, 744 So.2d at 260 ). [12] Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(d) (Rev. 2002). [13] Miss.

2009Ed. 2d 335 (1991) (adopting the two-part policy test)). 10 Id. 11 Bridges v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist., 793 So. 2d 584, 588 (Miss. 2001) (citing Jones, 744 So. 2d at 260 ). 5 is found to have abused its discretion.12 While this may seem harsh, the MTCA’s intent is to “promote efficient and timely decision-making [by government officials] without fear of liability.

2004Id. at 639 (citing Murphy v. Urso, 88 Ill.2d 444 , 58 Ill.Dec. 828 , 430 N.E.2d 1079, 1082 (1981) & Thornton v. Paul, 74 Ill.2d 132 , 23 Ill.Dec. 541 , 384 N.E.2d 335, 340 (1978)).

2004Id. at 639 (citing Murphy v. Urso, 88 Ill.2d 444 , 58 Ill.Dec. 828 , 430 N.E.2d 1079, 1082 (1981) & Thornton v. Paul, 74 Ill.2d 132 , 23 Ill.Dec. 541 , 384 N.E.2d 335, 340 (1978)).

2004Id. at 639 (citing Murphy v. Urso, 88 Ill.2d 444 , 58 Ill.Dec. 828 , 430 N.E.2d 1079, 1082 (1981) & Thornton v. Paul, 74 Ill.2d 132 , 23 Ill.Dec. 541 , 384 N.E.2d 335, 340 (1978)).

2004Id. at 639 (citing Murphy v. Urso, 88 Ill.2d 444 , 58 Ill.Dec. 828 , 430 N.E.2d 1079, 1082 (1981) & Thornton v. Paul, 74 Ill.2d 132 , 23 Ill.Dec. 541 , 384 N.E.2d 335, 340 (1978)).

1998To prove willful misconduct by showing such violation of the policy, the employer must prove both the existence of the policy and the violation thereof by the employee." Id. at 608 (citations omitted). ¶ 21.

1997To prove willful misconduct by showing such violation of the policy, the employer must prove both the existence of the policy and the violation thereof by the employee." Id. at 608 (citations omitted). ¶21.

2010Dep't of Transp., 744 So.2d 256, 260 (Miss.1999) ( quoting United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 322 , 111 S.Ct. 1267 , 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991) (adopting the two-part policy test)). [10] Id. [11] Bridges v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist., 793 So.2d 584, 588 (Miss.2001) ( citing Jones, 744 So.2d at 260 ). [12] Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(d) (Rev. 2002). [13] Miss.

2010Dep't of Transp., 744 So.2d 256, 260 (Miss.1999) ( quoting United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 322 , 111 S.Ct. 1267 , 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991) (adopting the two-part policy test)). [10] Id. [11] Bridges v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist., 793 So.2d 584, 588 (Miss.2001) ( citing Jones, 744 So.2d at 260 ). [12] Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(d) (Rev. 2002). [13] Miss.

1986Regis Paper Co., 236 So.2d 388 (Miss. 1970) (punitive damages recoverable for a willful and intentional wrong); Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. v. Crews, 341 So.2d 1321 (Miss. 1977) (mere denial of claim by insurer does not justify punitive damages); Standard Life Insurance Co. of Indiana v. Veal, 354 So.2d 239 (Miss. 1978) (punitive damages are mandated by absence of an arguable reason); Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Mississippi v. Campbell, 466 So.2d 833 (Miss. 1984); Southern United Life Insurance Co. and First State Bank of Waynesboro v. Caves, 481 So.2d 764 (Miss. 1985) (failure of plaint

1985Neither may be taken from the jury except with scrupulous regard for the strictures of Paymaster Oil and progeny. [14] Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Mississippi, Inc. v. Campbell, 466 So.2d 833, 852 (Miss. 1984) (Robertson, J., Concurring). [15] Courts in other jurisdictions have recognized that where there is a factual issue on the liability feature of the insured's policy claim, an award of punitive damages or a statutory penalty is not proper as a matter of law.

1986Regis Paper Co., 236 So.2d 388 (Miss. 1970) (punitive damages recoverable for a willful and intentional wrong); Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. v. Crews, 341 So.2d 1321 (Miss. 1977) (mere denial of claim by insurer does not justify punitive damages); Standard Life Insurance Co. of Indiana v. Veal, 354 So.2d 239 (Miss. 1978) (punitive damages are mandated by absence of an arguable reason); Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Mississippi v. Campbell, 466 So.2d 833 (Miss. 1984); Southern United Life Insurance Co. and First State Bank of Waynesboro v. Caves, 481 So.2d 764 (Miss. 1985) (failure of plaint

1984A holding by the trial judge that plaintiff was not entitled to a peremptory instruction is tantamount to a holding that the insurance company had "an arguable reason for failing to pay a claim" within the meaning and contemplation of the now famous dicta from Standard Life Insurance Company of Indiana v. Veal, 354 So.2d at 248.

2015Put simply, “numerous cases ... support the position that misconduct occurs ... where an employer establishes an applicable policy and standard of behavior, the standard is communicated to its employees, and the employee violates these policies.” Johnson, 761 So.2d at 866 (¶ 19) (citations omitted). ¶ 13.

2011See McGuire, 647 So.2d at 707-08 . ¶ 28.

2010Dep't of Transp. v. Cargile, 847 So.2d 258, 268 (Miss.2003) ( citing State ex rel.

1984See Reserve Life, 444 So.2d at 815 (concurring opinion).

1973This general rule was approved by this court in Nebham v. Monsour, 162 Miss. 418 , 139 So. 166, 878 (1932).

1973This general rule was approved by this court in Nebham v. Monsour, 162 Miss. 418 , 139 So. 166, 878 (1932).