Miss. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Walters


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-IA-00553-SCT
Oral Argument: 07-18-2005
 

 

* 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).


Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-18-2005
Opinion Author: Smith, C.J.
Holding: Reversed and Rendered

Additional Case Information: Topic: Insurance - Household exclusion
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Graves, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-07-2003
Appealed from: Jones County Chancery Court
Judge: Franklin C. McKenzie, Jr.
Disposition: On summary judgment motion, the Jones County Chancery Court found that the policy issued to Cynthia Guy and her mother, Shirley Walters, provided liability coverage to Walters for the wrongful death claims asserted against her by Guy.
Case Number: 2002-0095-E

Note: Appellant's Motion for Modification of the Record is denied.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY




W. SHAN THOMPSON, JAMES R. MOORE, JR.



 

Appellee: SHIRLEY WALTERS AND CYNTHIA L. GUY THOMAS T. BUCHANAN, SAMUEL STEVEN McHARD, ERICA RENEE McHARD, TIMOTHY J. EVANS, JAMES ROBERT SULLIVAN, JR.  

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 - Household exclusion

Summary of the Facts: William Guy died as a result of an occurrence at the residence premises of Shirley Walters. Farm Bureau had issued a Manufactured Home Policy covering the Walters’ residence premises, which was in effect at the time of William’s injury and death. Farm Bureau interviewed Walters, and she admitted that William’s death was her fault because she failed to warn him of the imminent danger of gunfire and violence at her home. Cynthia Guy filed a wrongful death claim with Farm Bureau against her mother, Shirley Walters. Walters requested that Farm Bureau provide coverage and a defense. Farm Bureau issued a denial of coverage letter to Walters. Cynthia offered to settle the claim within the Farm Bureau policy limits, but Farm Bureau rejected this offer. Farm Bureau filed a complaint for declaratory relief seeking a determination that it had no duty to defend or to indemnify Walters. Farm Bureau also sought a declaration stating that it was not required to provide coverage for the Guy claim. Guy and Walters each filed a counterclaim asserting Farm Bureau’s breach of duty to defend, indemnify and Farm Bureau’s failure to provide coverage. Additionally, Guy filed a cross-claim against Walters for wrongful death. Guy’s cross-claim against Walters was severed from the underlying declaratory judgment action without objection by Farm Bureau. After severance, Cynthia and Walters announced a Mary Carter agreement in which Walters admitted liability for the death of William. The chancellor found Walters seventy-five percent at fault for damages of $3.6 million. The court then entered a judgment for $2.7 million against Walters. Farm Bureau moved for summary judgment on its declaratory action, and Guy and Walters moved for partial summary judgment on their counterclaims. The chancellor entered his conclusions of law finding that the household exclusion did not apply and thus William was not an insured under the policy. The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The relevant portion of the Farm Bureau policy reads: “Insured” means you and residents of your household who are: a. Your relatives; or b. Other persons under the age of 21 and in the care of any person named above. The declarations and application page both list Shirley Walters and Cynthia Guy as named insureds. The agent told Guy that she had to be listed as an insured because her name was on the title to the mobile home. Guy now argues that Farm Bureau’s policy implicitly links the “insured” to the “insured location,” and therefore Guy can not be an insured because she does not live on or reside at the Walters’ residence premises. This argument is without merit because it is not uncommon to purchase insurance for a location which one does not live upon. Guy helped her mother purchase the mobile home and wanted to make sure her investment was protected. Because Cynthia Guy is a “named insured” her spouse also falls within the broad category of “your relatives” outlined in the definition of “insured.” Therefore, the household exclusion applies, and there was no duty to defend by Farm Bureau.


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