Owens v. Miss. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00953-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-15-2005 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Choice of law - Weight of evidence - Section 83-11-101(1) Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Trial on Merits & Directed Verdict Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-10-2002 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Margaret Carey-McCray Disposition: Circuit Judge ruled Farmers entitled to a directed verdict. Case Number: CI20-0277 |
|
| Note: | Insurance case | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | LINDA OWENS |
PHILIP B. TERNEY |
||
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE | GERALD H. JACKS, KATHY R. CLARK, STEVEN CAVITT COOKSTON, MARC A. BIGGERS |
|
|
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 - Choice of law - Weight of evidence - Section 83-11-101(1) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Linda Owens was injured in an automobile accident in Mississippi while riding as a guest passenger in a vehicle owned and driven by Tennessee resident Ruth Saed. The accident was caused by the negligence of Hubert Branch. Owens suffered extensive injuries and incurred medical bills in the range of $90,000. At the time of the accident, Branch had $20,071 in liability coverage and therefore was an under insured/uninsured motorist. Saed’s automobile insurance policy was written in Tennessee by Farmers Insurance Exchange, and provided $100,000 of uninsured/under insured motorists coverage, and $5,000 in medical coverage, for the named insured and guest passengers. Owens was an insured under an automobile policy purchased by her husband, Ralph, from Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company. The Farm Bureau policy covered five vehicles, and included $300,000 of bodily injury liability coverage, $50,000 in UM coverage, and $15,000 in medical coverage, for each of the five insured vehicles. Thus, under her own policy, Mrs. Owens had $250,000 in UM coverage and $75,000 in medical coverage. Additionally, Mrs. Owens was covered by a Farm Bureau umbrella policy issued to Mr. Owens. Although the umbrella policy provided $2 Million in liability coverage, it had no UM coverage because of a waiver signed by Mr. Owens. Branch’s liability carrier paid its policy limits of $20,071. Three months after the accident, Mrs. Owens notified Farm Bureau of the accident and requested assistance with her medical bills. Farm Bureau began making medical payments and continued to do so for a year, at which time the medical bills totaled more than $60,000. Farm Bureau continued to make medical payments under its UM coverage, in addition to $1,288 in disability payments due under the policy. Owens’ attorney notified Farm Bureau that she was ready to settle her UM claim. Upon determining that Mrs. Owens’s claim would “arguably” exceed its policy limits, Farm Bureau tendered the balance of its UM coverage in the amount of $232,088.23. The check was returned to Farm Bureau by Mrs. Owens’s counsel, who informed Farm Bureau that his client was not ready to receive those funds. The funds were thereafter paid by Farm Bureau and received by Mrs. Owens with agreement of her counsel. Owens had pursued a claim for UM benefits from Farmers, asserting that she was entitled to UM benefits because she was a guest passenger in its insured’s vehicle at the time of the accident. Mrs. Owens admits that Farmers timely paid its $5,000 medical benefit, but claims that Farmers ignored her claim for UM benefits for months, thereby acting in bad faith. Farmers ultimately paid Owens all of its available UM policy limits of $79,929. Linda Owens sued Farmers and Farm Bureau, alleging that both Farm Bureau and Farmers negligently and in bad faith failed to investigate, evaluate and pay her claim within a reasonable time and that Farm Bureau’s agent had failed to adequately explain UM coverage to her husband, which resulted in her economic loss because she was not insured with the maximum UM coverage available. At the conclusion of Owens’s case, Farmers moved for a directed verdict, asserting that, under Tennessee law, Owens had not established that she was entitled to UM coverage. The circuit judge held that Farmers was entitled to a directed verdict. The case was submitted to the jury on Mrs. Owens’s two claims against Farm Bureau. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Farm Bureau on both issues, and Owens appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Choice of law Owens argues that Mississippi law should apply and that she should have been allowed to present her bad faith claim under Mississippi law to the jury. She argues that her residency, together with Mississippi’s strong public policy in favor of full uninsured motorist coverage are the most important factors to consider in deciding which state’s laws to apply in this case. The trial court conducted a balancing under the center of gravity test and noted that the contract was made in Tennessee, the negotiations took place in Tennessee, and Saed was a Tennessee resident. The court further noted the location of subject matter of the contract was Tennessee, and the fact that the accident occurred in Mississippi should be given little, if any, weight. Finally, the court considered the domicile of the parties, including both the parties to the contract, who were both domiciled in Tennessee, as well as Mrs. Owens, whose domicile was Mississippi. The trial court correctly applied the center of gravity test in holding that Tennessee law controls the claims of Owens against Farmers. Issue 2: Weight of evidence Owens argues that the jury verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. She argues that Farm Bureau did not adequately explain uninsured motorist coverage to her husband when he purchased and renewed numerous automobile liability insurance policies over a nine-year period. The statutorily required waiver of UM coverage may be obtained only from a fully-informed insured. That is to say, the waiver must be knowing and intelligent. However, the implication in Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Berry, 669 So. 2d 56 (Miss. 1996) that an insurance agent has the absolute, court-created duty to explain an insured’s right to purchase additional UM coverage, over and above the amount of coverage required by statute, is overruled. Under section 83-11-101(1), the only coverage required to be written, unless rejected by written waiver, is the limits which shall be no less than those set forth in the Mississippi Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law. Thus, according to the statute, every automobile liability policy written in Mississippi provides UM coverage up to the MVSRL limit, regardless of what may or may not be written in the policy. The same cannot be said for optional coverage which exceeds that limit. Such optional coverage is not required by statute, and the statute contains no requirement of a waiver for an insured to reject the optional coverage. Mr. Owens’s testimony concerning his knowledge of UM issues and his own coverage was less than positive. For instance, when asked questions concerning whether UM coverage had been explained to him, he replied that he did not remember. Mr. Owens testified that he understood he could have raised his limits, but chose not to do so, and he provided testimony this indicated he understood the purpose of UM coverage. Based on this evidence, the jury did not abuse its discretion. Mrs. Owens also argues that Farm Bureau negligently, and in bad faith, handled her claim. The precise claim is that Farm Bureau should have settled their claim sooner. This evidence on this issue, though conflicting with evidence presented by Mrs. Owens, is sufficient to support a jury verdict in favor of Farm Bureau. Owens also argues that Farm Bureau’s attorney made personal attacks on her and her husband at the trial. At times during the trial, both Farm Bureau’s counsel and counsel for Mrs. Owens were verbally warned or reprimanded by the trial court for inappropriate remarks to the court and/or a witness. At times, hostile attitudes were exhibited on the part of attorneys and witnesses. However, the remarks and information complained of, taken individually or as a whole, do not justify a new trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
