Honeycutt v. Coleman, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-01470-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-01470-COA ; 2010-CA-01470-COA ; 2010-CT-01470-SCT ; 2010-CT-01470-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-30-2013 Opinion Author: King, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2012 Opinion Author: Russell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Duty of agent - Uninsured motorist coverage - Knowing and intelligent waiver Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson, P.J., Kitchens and Chandler, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Randolph, P.J., Lamar, Pierce and Coleman, JJ., Concur in Part and in Result Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE Writ of Certiorari: Yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-27-2010 Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr. Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO UNINSURED-MOTORIST COVERAGE AVAILABLE Case Number: 2001-0059-CV1 |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court held that when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Appellant, a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the insurance agent explained the costs and benefits and whether the Honeycutts gave a knowing and intelligent waiver of UM coverage. In doing so, it reversed and remanded the cause. The original Court of Appeals opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO76285.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Charlie Honeycutt |
JOSEPH E. ROBERTS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Tommy Coleman, Atlanta Casualty Companies, Atlanta Casualty Company and American Premier Insurance Company | JOHN W. CROWELL THOMAS Y. PAGE |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Insurance - Duty of agent - Uninsured motorist coverage - Knowing and intelligent waiver |
| Summary of the Facts: | After being injured in an automobile accident with a state trooper, Charles Honeycutt sued the state trooper and two automobile-insurance providers – Atlanta Casualty and American Premier Insurance Company. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Honeycutt appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Duty of agent Charles argues that the trial court and the Court of Appeals misinterpreted case law regarding an insurance agent’s duty to explain UM coverage to an insured. Two cases at issue here are Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Berry, 669 So. 2d 56 (Miss. 1996) (Berry), and Owens v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, 910 So. 2d 1065 (Miss. 2005). In Berry, the Court held that an insurance agent has a duty to explain a waiver of UM coverage and to explain the option to purchase additional UM coverage. In Owens, the Court partially overruled Berry. The Court affirmed that waiver of UM coverage could be obtained only by a knowing and intelligent waiver. But the Court determined that an insurance agent did not have a duty to explain additional UM coverage above the statutory minimum, overruling Berry on this point. The Owens Court questioned whether an insurance agent absolutely was required to explain a waiver of UM coverage if the insured was “already fully aware of the intricacies of UM coverage, including the costs and benefits . . . .” Because Owens did not concern a waiver of UM coverage, the question was not before the Court, and the language is dicta. Owens did not take the extra step to overrule Berry’s holding on this matter. Any document signed by the client which allegedly states that an explanation was given to the client may be considered by the fact finder, but this is not dispositive as to whether the client gave a knowing and intelligent waiver of UM coverage. Whether a client made a knowing and intelligent waiver of UM coverage ultimately is a question of fact to be resolved by the trier of fact. Issue 2: Summary judgment Charles argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of American Premier. Charles maintains that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether his parents gave a knowing and intelligent waiver of UM coverage. American Premier argues that the provision signed by the Honeycutts was sufficient to show that it had obtained a knowing and intelligent waiver of UM coverage. While the waiver of UM coverage signed by the Honeycutts can be considered in determining whether they made a knowing and intelligent waiver of UM coverage, the document is not outcome-determinative. The Honeycutts testified that, although Sam signed the provision, they did not read the provision and (notwithstanding the assertion of an explanation contained in that provision) the insurance agent failed to explain the waiver of UM coverage. Barbara testified that “they just tell you you don’t have to bother reading it, just initial it or sign it.” Owens makes clear that the insured must be “reasonably knowledgeable and informed of the costs and benefits of such UM coverage prior to signing the waiver.” The waiver provision itself neither explains the benefits of UM coverage nor the consequences of rejecting UM coverage. While it is plausible that the Honeycutts were aware of the intricacies of UM coverage, this determination should be made by the fact-finder. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
