Anglin v. Gulf Guaranty Life Ins. Co.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-02082-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-02082-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-19-2007 Opinion Author: RANDOLPH, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Decline or cancel coverage Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., DIAZ, EASLEY, CARLSON, GRAVES AND DICKINSON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): COBB, P.J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-14-2005 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: Granted Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment Case Number: 99-113(R)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CLYDE ANGLIN |
DANA GAIL DEATON
CHRIS H. DEATON
GRANT M. FOX
SARA MARTIN FOX |
||
| Appellee: | GULF GUARANTY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY | THOMAS WICKER |
|
|
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 - Decline or cancel coverage |
| Summary of the Facts: | Clyde Anglin purchased credit life insurance coverage and monthly disability insurance coverage underwritten by Gulf Guaranty Life Insurance Company. The certificates of insurance were issued to Anglin without a request to answer any health questions preprinted on the application or otherwise. The certificates of insurance reserved the right for Gulf Guaranty to decline coverage within ninety days of each loan. Within ninety days of the first two purchases, Gulf Guaranty declined Anglin’s monthly disability insurance coverage (but only on the second certificate of insurance), and cancelled his credit life insurance coverage on all certificates of insurance. Subsequent to his receipt of the certificates of insurance, but before the declination of one policy and cancellation of three others, Anglin was diagnosed with an incurable, fast-progressing disease. Prior to his death, Anglin filed suit against Gulf Guaranty. Gulf Guaranty filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. Anglin appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Anglin argues that Gulf Guaranty had the right to decline coverage under certain circumstances but not the right to cancel insurance. The plain and unambiguous term “decline” must be afforded its plain, ordinary meaning and be applied as written. The terms “cancel” and “decline” are distinguishable. To “cancel” presumes prior validation or acceptance, whereas to “decline” does not. The plain language of the insurance provision gave Gulf Guaranty the right to “decline” coverage within ninety days of the loan, not accept then “cancel,” or accept and reinsure, then “cancel.” Gulf Guaranty failed to “decline” credit life insurance coverage within ninety days of each loan. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for Gulf Guaranty because under the plain and unambiguous language of the certificate of insurance it improperly sought to “cancel,” rather than “decline,” Anglin’s credit life insurance coverage. Gulf Guaranty had only the contractual right to “decline” Anglin’s credit life insurance coverage, not “cancel” it. Therefore, even if the policy language is ambiguous, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because Gulf Guaranty improperly acted to “cancel,” rather than “decline,” Anglin’s credit life insurance coverage. Because the certificates of insurance were issued without any health questions or the requirement for a health questionnaire, Anglin argues that Gulf Guaranty could not legally cancel Anglin’s insurance on the basis of a health condition. Gulf Guaranty contractually had the right to decline the insurance coverage within ninety days regardless of whether health questions were asked or answered on the application for insurance form. Anglin argues that Gulf Guaranty’s cancellation of Anglin’s policy after the onset of his fatal illness was unconscionable. Consideration of this issue on appeal is procedurally barred, because it was raised for the first time on appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
