Court: Mississippi Supreme Court; September 27, 2007; Mississippi; State Supreme Court
Carl Mitchell, a Mississippi resident, was involved in a car accident with Louisiana resident Patrick Benfatti in New Orleans on November 27, 2002. Benfatti allegedly provided proof of insurance at the scene. On January 16, 2003, Mitchell's attorney, Karl Wiedemann (not licensed in Mississippi), faxed a letter to Progressive Gulf Insurance Company, asserting an uninsured motorist claim against Benfatti, claiming he had no liability insurance at the time of the accident.
In December 2005, Wiedemann attempted to file a complaint against Progressive in Wayne County Circuit Court, but it was rejected by the Circuit Clerk because it was not signed by a Mississippi-licensed attorney. The complaint was subsequently returned to Wiedemann, who was informed of the filing deficiency. In February 2006, a new complaint was filed by Mitchell's current attorney, Jeffrey L. Ellis, who is licensed in Mississippi.
Progressive responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that the initial complaint was improperly filed and that the February 2006 complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. The circuit court ruled in favor of Progressive, dismissing the case on the grounds that the December 2005 complaint was invalid and the subsequent complaint was time-barred. Mitchell filed a notice of appeal following the judgment.
In April 2006, Progressive filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Mitchell's claim for benefits under his uninsured/underinsured motorist policy was time-barred, as it should have been filed by January 16, 2006, but was not filed until February 14, 2006. In response, Mitchell claimed his complaint was filed on December 5, 2005, with a valid file stamp from the Wayne County Circuit Clerk's Office, indicating timely action.
The circuit court ruled that the December 2005 complaint was not legally filed due to several reasons: it was unsigned by Mitchell, signed by an out-of-state attorney not licensed in Mississippi, and lacked proper records in the Circuit Clerk's office. The court emphasized that only licensed attorneys or those admitted pro hac vice could file documents in Mississippi courts. Consequently, the court dismissed Mitchell's claim with prejudice, determining that the complaint was not legally filed until February 14, 2006, making it time-barred since Mitchell learned the other driver was uninsured by January 16, 2003.
Mitchell appealed the dismissal on August 30, 2006. The appellate court will review whether the circuit court erred in granting the motion to dismiss, applying a de novo standard of review for legal questions, including issues related to the statute of limitations. Mitchell argues that the stamped complaint suffices to establish a filing date, and that the statute of limitations was tolled upon filing, allowing him to pursue his claims against Progressive.
The December 5, 2005 complaint was deemed non-compliant with Rule 11 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 46 of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure, as it lacked a motion for admission pro hac vice and was not signed by a licensed Mississippi attorney or by Mitchell himself. Wiedemann's submission of the complaint solely under his signature constituted unauthorized practice of law. Consequently, the Wayne County Circuit Court rightfully refused to file the complaint, which was returned to Wiedemann with notice of its deficiencies in time for resubmission before the statute of limitations expired. However, Wiedemann did not act until February 14, 2006, which was one month past the deadline, rendering Mitchell's complaint time-barred and properly dismissed with prejudice. The statute of limitations, established by the Legislature, is intended to ensure timely pursuit of valid claims. In this case, a three-year statute of limitations applies to actions against insurers for uninsured motorist benefits, with both parties agreeing that the cause of action accrued on January 16, 2003. Therefore, Mitchell was required to file the complaint in adherence to Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure before the three-year period ended.
Mitchell attempted to file a complaint in the circuit court on December 5, 2005, but the validity of this filing is in question. Under Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 46 (b)(2), a foreign attorney must appear pro hac vice, which requires association with a local attorney, a verified application, a clerk's statement, and a $200 fee. Rule 46 (b)(11)(I) mandates that any pleadings filed by a foreign attorney not complying with these requirements must be stricken from the record, either upon a party's motion or by the court's own decision. The case law reinforces this: in Terrell v. Tschirn, pleadings were stricken due to a violation of Rule 46; however, in Dinet v. Gavagnie, a foreign attorney's non-compliance did not lead to dismissal because a local attorney was associated prior to dismissal.
Additionally, Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (a) requires that pleadings filed by an attorney must include the signature of an attorney of record, and any foreign attorney's signature must indicate compliance with Rule 46 for pro hac vice admission. The court found that Mitchell's December 5 complaint, which was signed solely by a Louisiana attorney, was properly refused and stricken from the record, as there was no evidence that the attorney had complied with pro hac vice requirements. Bingham's affidavit confirmed that the complaint was refused and removed from records. Since a subsequent complaint was not filed until February 14, 2006, after the statute of limitations had expired, the circuit court’s dismissal of Mitchell’s claim with prejudice was deemed correct.
Mitchell contends that equitable estoppel should prevent Progressive from invoking the statute of limitations defense due to Progressive's inaction despite being notified of the claim. Progressive counters that equitable estoppel requires evidence of inequitable or fraudulent conduct, which Mitchell has not provided, arguing that his claim of being "stonewalled" is unsubstantiated. The court outlines the definition of equitable estoppel, which necessitates a belief and reliance on a representation, a resultant change of position, and resulting detriment. It also emphasizes that evidence of inequitable or fraudulent conduct must be present to invoke estoppel against a statute of limitations defense. Since no such evidence was submitted, the court affirms the circuit court’s dismissal of Mitchell's claim.
Additionally, the court notes that Wiedemann violated Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure and Civil Procedure by attempting to file a complaint without proper admission, which could lead to disciplinary action against him. The case is remanded to the trial court to inform the Louisiana State Bar of this unauthorized practice and to impose appropriate sanctions. The court's ruling is affirmed and remanded for further action.
Mitchell's claim highlights an ongoing settlement discussion with Progressive that began after a January 16, 2003, letter. He asserts that despite continued medical treatment for his injuries, a resolution was not reached due to Hurricane Katrina's impact on settlement negotiations, which caused significant damage to Wiedemann's office, including the loss of computers and files. The case was initially assigned Cause No. CV-2005-212-B, but the complaint lacked an attorney's Mississippi Bar number and was reportedly never served to Progressive. It transitioned to Cause No. CV-2006-22-B, and there is no transcript of the hearing on Progressive's Motion to Dismiss. Progressive counters Mitchell's argument for equitable estoppel, noting that over two and a half years elapsed without action before Hurricane Katrina struck, and asserts that Wiedemann successfully filed a complaint before the statute of limitations expired, suggesting that the hurricane cannot be solely blamed for Mitchell's inaction.
