Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Neshoba County Fair Association, Inc. et al

Filing 44

ORDER granting 38 Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Complaint. The Third-Party complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 12/20/2016 (dtj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY
INSURANCE COMPANY
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-43-KS-MTP

NESHOBA COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION, INC.,
NIEL LITTLE AND WENDY LITTLE on behalf of
all wrongful death beneficiaries of Christopher Blaine
Little, Deceased, and ABC INDIVIDUALS 1-20 AND
XYZ ENTITIES 1-20

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Complaint (“Motion
to Dismiss”) [38] filed by Third-Party Defendant Renasant Insurance, Inc.. After considering the
submissions of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that this motion is well
taken and should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 8, 2016, Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“PIIC”) filed this
declaratory judgment action against Defendants Neshoba County Fair Association, Inc. (“Neshoba”)
and Niel and Wendy Little (the “Littles”). PIIC requests the Court enter a judgment pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that an insurance policy issued by PIIC to Neshoba does not require PIIC
to defend or indemnify Neshoba in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Littles.
The Littles filed their Answer [17] on September 7, 2016. In it, they asserted a counterclaim
against PIIC, a cross-claim against Neshoba, and a Third-Party Complaint against Renasant
Insurance, Inc. (“Renasant”). Christopher Little, the decedent, died after an accident during a horse
race, which the Littles claim is a regular event held on the fairgrounds. The Littles claim that
Renasant is liable to them for its failure to procure adequate insurance coverage for Neshoba

On November 8, 2016, the Court dismissed the Littles counterclaim against PIIC. Renasant
filed the current Motion to Dismiss [38] on November 23, 2016, arguing that the Third-Party
Complaint against it is improperly brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14.
II. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(1) authorizes a third-party complaint against “a
nonparty who is or may be liable to [a defendant] for all or part of the claim against it.” This rule
limits third-party claims, then, to those claims which spring from “some form of derivative or
secondary liability of the third-party defendant to the third-party plaintiff.” First Bank & Trust v.
Emp’rs Mut. Cas. Co., 268 F.R.D. 275, 277 (S.D. Miss. 2010). The Fifth Circuit has explained that
“an entirely separate and independent claim cannot be maintained against a third party under Rule
14, even though it does arise out of the same general set of facts as the main claim.” United States
v. Joe Grasso & Son, Inc., 380 F.2d 749, 751 (5th Cir. 1967); see also First Bank, 268 F.R.D. at 277.
There is no doubt that the Littles’ third-party claim against Renasant is “an entirely separate
and independent claim.” The only claim brought by PIIC in the original Complaint [1] is a claim
for declaratory judgment holding that PIIC is not liable under the insurance policy it issued to
Neshoba. The Littles concede that “normally, as a third-party to the underlying insurance
contract/policy, they would not have standing to assert claims against Renasant Insurance, Inc.
(“Renasant”), in its role in the insurance dispute.” (Response [42] at p. 2.) They argue, though, that
“this is no longer an ordinary insurance dispute” and their Third-Party Complaint should not be
dismissed. (Id.) The Littles give no reason why this is not an ordinary insurance dispute, nor do
they cite any authority which would make their third-party claims procedurally proper. Because
Rule 14 does not allow these claims to be brought in this action, the Court will grant Renasant’s
Motion to Dismiss [38]. However, because the Court makes no ruling on the merits of the Third2

Party Complaint and only finds that it is procedurally improper, it will be dismissed without
prejudice.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Renasant’s Motion to Dismiss [38]
is granted. The Third-Party Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the

20th day of December, 2016.

s/Keith Starrett
KEITH STARRETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3