Alfa Insurance v. Rayals
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01652-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-01652-SCT2002-CT-01652-SCT2002-CT-01652-SCT2002-CT-01652-SCT2002-CA-01652-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 01-21-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Date: 06-15-2004 Opinion Author: MYERS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Legally entitled to recover - Definition of use - Expert testimony Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., THOMAS, LEE, AND CHANDLER, JJ. Dissenting Author : GRIFFIS, J. IRVING, J. - w/o separate opinion Dissent Joined By : BRIDGES AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-13-2002 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Goza, Jr. Disposition: FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS AND AWARD OF $210,000 FOR EACH DEATH. |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ALFA INSURANCE CORPORATION |
HERMAN M. HOLLENSED |
||
| Appellee: | KENNETH WAYNE RYALS, ADMINISTRATOR ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF KENNETH RYALS, DECEASED, AND KENNETH WAYNE RYALS, ADMINISTRATOR ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF GEORGIA RYALS, DECEASED | NORMAN WILLIAM PAULI T. JACKSON LYONS |
|
|
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 - Legally entitled to recover - Definition of use - Expert testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kenneth Ryals and his wife, Georgia Ryals, were killed when a dead pine tree fell across the cab of their truck. Kenneth Wayne Ryals, co-administrator of the Ryalses’ estates, filed wrongful death complaints against the Mississippi Department of Transportation and the Mississippi Transportation Commission alleging that the Ryalses’ deaths were caused by MDOT’s failure to provide reasonably safe highways. An amended complaint was filed to include Alfa Insurance Corporation as a codefendant. The Ryalses had automobile insurance coverage with Alfa which included an uninsured motorist provision. Alfa filed a cross-claim against MDOT for subrogation of the Ryalses’ claims. MDOT settled with the Ryals family for $250,000, and the judge entered an agreed order of dismissal. Alfa agreed to dismiss its counter-claim against MDOT but specifically reserved the right to use MDOT’s sovereign immunity claim as a defense in its suit against the Ryals family. The jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Ryals family and awarded a recovery of $210,00 for each death (the maximum amount recoverable under Alfa’s uninsured motorist policy). Alfa appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Legally entitled to recover Alfa argues that the Ryalses are not ”legally entitled to recover” uninsured motorist benefits because they have already received the statutory cap of $250,000 from MDOT. The purpose of the uninsured motorist statute is to allow the insured to get all sums he is legally entitled to recover. At trial, the parties stipulated that the Ryalses’ claims for the wrongful deaths of their parents exceeded $670,000. Based upon the remedial purposes of the Uninsured Motorist Act and the stipulated damages which well exceed the $250,000 settlement with MDOT, the Ryalses were entitled to receive uninsured motorist benefits from Alfa according to the automobile insurance policy. Issue 2: Definition of use Alfa argues that the Ryals family is barred from recovering uninsured motorist benefits because the deaths were not caused by an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the MDOT platform truck as required by the Alfa insurance policy. When a policy insures an automobile for the “use” of the automobile, the chain of causation between the use of the automobile and the injury must be direct. The language in the Alfa insurance policy states that it will pay for bodily injury which results from "the operation, maintenance, or use of a uninsured car.” The policy also defines the word use or used as “meaning the actual manual and physical driving of a car.” A car is defined by the policy as “a land motor vehicle with four or more wheels, which is designed for use mainly on public roads.” There is no break in the chain of causation in the Ryalses’ case. There was no intervening superceding cause between the MDOT platform truck pushing on the tree and the tree falling on the Ryalses’ vehicle. It was a factual question for the jury to decide whether or not the act of the MDOT truck pushing against the dead tree was the proximate cause of the accident. Issue 3: Expert testimony Alfa argues that the Ryalses’ expert should not have been allowed to testify as an expert witness, because his testimony was speculative. According to M.R.E. 702, expert testimony should be admitted if the witness is qualified by virtue of his of her knowledge, skill, experience or education, and the witness’s scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge assists the trier of fact in understanding or deciding a fact in issue. The expert testified that he earned a degree in forestry and had worked in that field for twelve years. Clearly, he was qualified to testify as an expert in the field of forestry. In addition, his testimony was helpful to the jury on the issue of what caused the tree to fall and fatally injure the Ryalses. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the testimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
