Bowden v. Young - 120 So. 3d 971 (Miss. 2013)

Rule:

Where the trial court denied the defendants' Miss. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, an appellate court is bound to look only at the complaint filed by the plaintiffs and to determine whether, taking all of the allegations as true, the complaint makes a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Facts:

The plaintiffs, Cherie Brott Blackmore and Diane Young, sued their former employer, V&B law firm, as well as the individual partners, defendants Eric Wooten, Ben Bowden, Tom Vaughn, and office administrator Debra Vaughn, for multiple claims regarding the presence of toxic mold in two of the offices in which the firm had worked. They also argue that they were exposed to sewer gas and a natural gas leak. The plaintiffs also sued the owner of the second building in which both plaintiffs claim they were injured. Defendant argued that all claims against it relate to unintentional torts and therefore were governed by the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Act and that the plaintiffs' sole avenue of relief lies with workers' compensation. Defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against it under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, contending that the plaintiffs had failed to present any claims on which relief could be granted. The other party also filed a Rule12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The trial court denied both motions. Defendants petitioned this Court for interlocutory appeal.

Issue:

Did the trial court err in denying defendant’s Miss. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ suit asserting several tort claims based on their alleged workplace exposure to toxins and noxious gas?

Answer:

Yes. The judgment was reversed.

Conclusion:

The court ruled that the plaintiffs' claim that defendants battered them when it failed to remediate toxic mold, which they later inhaled, and by spraying the mold with a substance that injured them, was barred by workers' compensation exclusivity under Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-9 because they did not assert that defendants acted with actual intent to batter and injure them. Also, their IIED claim was barred by workers' compensation exclusivity because the employer's initial denial that there was toxic mold in the building did not rise to the level of outrageous and extreme conduct, especially in view of its later actions to remediate the mold problem.