Thomas v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00656-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00656-SCT ; 2002-CT-00656-SCT ; 2002-CA-00656-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-24-2003 Opinion Author: Thomas, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Intentional harm exclusion Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-25-2002 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Margaret Carey-McCray Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF STATE FARM Case Number: 96-0307 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | PEARLIE THOMAS |
W. DEAN BELK |
||
| Appellee: | STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY A/K/A STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY | BRADLEY BARRON VANCE WILLIAM M. DALEHITE |
|
|
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 - Intentional harm exclusion |
| Summary of the Facts: | Pearlie Thomas sued her cousin, Bessie Mallard, for injuries she sustained when Bessie shot her. A default judgment was entered and a hearing was held to determine damages. Thomas was awarded $473,067.54 in compensatory damages and $70,000 in punitive damages. Thomas filed a garnishment action against State Farm to recover from Mallard's homeowner's insurance policy. State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. Thomas appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The policy contained an exclusionary provision that excluded from coverage intentional acts done by the insured. Thomas argues that the court erred in its finding that Mallard intended to harm Thomas. An act is intentional if the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act, or believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it. The record shows that Thomas changed her story regarding the intention of Mallard after asking for punitive damages. At the very least, Mallard believed that the consequences which occurred were substantially certain to occur. Thomas never once, prior to the garnishment action, contended that Mallard did not shoot her intentionally. Given the prior criminal and civil proceedings wherein Thomas alleged a malicious and intentional assault upon her and Mallard acknowledged the same, she is now barred from asserting a different set of facts. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
