Jones v. Southern United Fire Ins., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00446-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-08-2006 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Modification of policy - Section 83-11-101 - Oral request Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-21-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: William H. Singletary Disposition: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED. Case Number: G2004-969-S-2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MARCEY T. JONES |
ALSEE MCDANIEL |
||
| Appellee: | SOUTHERN UNITED FIRE INSURANCE AND ALPHA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. | WILLIAM HEATH HILLMAN, SERENA RASPBERRY CLARK, ROBERT A. MILLER |
|
|
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 - Modification of policy - Section 83-11-101 - Oral request |
| Summary of the Facts: | Marcey Jones purchased automobile insurance with Alpha Insurance Agency, Inc., underwritten by Southern United Fire Insurance Company, in which she signed a form expressly rejecting uninsured motorist coverage. Three months later, when Jones purchased a new vehicle, she contacted Alpha to change the covered vehicle on her policy. After being involved in a hit and run accident, Jones filed a claim with Southern United. The claim was denied because Jones did not have uninsured motorist coverage. Jones filed suit claiming she was wrongfully denied coverage. Alpha and Southern United filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. Jones appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Modification of policy Jones argues that the court erred in finding that Jones’ alleged request for uninsured motorist coverage on the new vehicle was not in writing and, therefore, did not comport with section 83-11-101. Section 83-11-101(2) states, in part, that no automobile insurance policy shall be issued unless the policy contains a provision undertaking to pay the insured all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages for property damage from the owner of an uninsured motor vehicle. Pursuant to the statute, once Jones properly refused uninsured motorist coverage, any request for uninsured motorist coverage in a renewal policy made thereafter, must be made in writing. Jones argues that the requirement that a request for uninsured motorist coverage must be in writing does not apply to her because the policy written for the new vehicle was not a renewal policy. Although Jones claims that the policy was a new policy, there is no evidence that either party cancelled the original policy nor is there evidence that a new policy was created. An insured can cancel an insurance policy voluntarily by requesting cancellation or by allowing the policy to lapse through failure to pay the premiums. Jones does not allege that she requested a cancellation of the insurance policy nor did she allow the policy to lapse. Jones signed a Mississippi endorsement change form which modified only the covered vehicle. The change form did not modify the type of coverage nor was the uninsured motorist coverage added onto the original policy. Additionally, the policy number did not change. It is undisputed that Jones originally rejected the uninsured motorist coverage by signing the uninsured motorists coverage selection or rejection form. It is also undisputed that Jones did not revoke that rejection in writing. Therefore, Jones failed to meet the requirements of requesting uninsured motorist coverage for a renewal policy in writing under section 83-11-101(2). Issue 2: Oral request Jones argues that her oral request for uninsured motorist coverage and the insurance agent’s oral promise to provide such coverage in a new policy was binding upon Alpha and Southern United to provide the coverage. The Mississippi Supreme Court has said an agent can waive the requirement for written request. Jones never alleged that the insurance agent orally promised to provide her uninsured motorist coverage until she filed her motion for appeal. Since there was no evidence of an oral waiver by the insurance agent for the trial court to consider, there is not a dispute as to whether the requirement of a written request was actually waived. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
