Steen v. Metropolitan Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-CA-01474-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-28-2003
Opinion Author: Myers, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Insurance - Uninsured motorist benefits - Section 83-11-101(1) - Exclusivity of workers’ compensation - Recovery from co-employee
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-29-2002
Appealed from: Sunflower County Circuit Court
Judge: Richard Smith
Disposition: ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF METROPOLITAN PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY
Case Number: 2001-0411-CI

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: WILLIE DAVID STEEN AND WILLIE MAE STEEN




WALTER BEAUREGARD SWAIN



 

Appellee: METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY RONALD L. ROBERTS BERKLEY N. HUSKISON  

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 - Uninsured motorist benefits - Section 83-11-101(1) - Exclusivity of workers’ compensation - Recovery from co-employee

Summary of the Facts: While working at Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., Willie David Steen and William Fikes were involved in a car accident. Fikes was uninsured but Delta Pride carried workers’ compensation insurance which provided statutory benefits to Steen. Steen also carried a personal automobile insurance policy with Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company that contained uninsured motorist coverage. Metropolitan did not provide any insurance to Delta Pride. Metropolitan denied liability claiming that Steen was not legally entitled to recover from his co-employee and that Steen’s policy clearly excluded coverage in such a case. Steen filed a complaint against Metropolitan and Fikes. Fikes and Metropolitan filed motions for summary judgment. The court entered a judgment of dismissal as to Fikes and entered an order granting Metropolitan’s motion for summary judgment. Steen appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Steen argues that his claim for uninsured motorist benefits for his work-related injury is not barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act because that Act serves a different purpose than the uninsured motorist statute. Section 83-11-101(1) provides that no automobile liability insurance policy shall be issued after January 1, 1967, unless it contains an endorsement undertaking to pay the insured all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages for bodily injury or death from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle. In addition, the exclusivity provision of the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act prohibits an employee injured in the course and scope of his employment by the negligence of a co-employee from recovering from that co-employee. The meaning of the phrase legally entitled to recover found in section 83-11-101(1) limits the scope of coverage mandated by the statute to those instances in which the insured would be entitled at the time of injury to recover through legal action. Since Steen could not bring a legal action against Fikes at the time of the accident, he was not entitled to recover uninsured motorist benefits from his personal insurer.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court