Meyers v. American States Ins. Co., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01669-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-01669-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 05-06-2005 | |
* 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: 06-09-2005 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Stacking uninsured motorist coverage - Class II insureds - Commercial umbrella policy - Section 83-11-111 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Easley and Graves, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Randolph, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-15-2003 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Dale Harkey Disposition: Granted summary judgment. Case Number: CI-95-0179(1) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Daniel Meyers |
ADRIENNE P. PARKER, WAYNE E. FERRELL, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | American States Insurance Company, American Economy Insurance Company and Safeco Insurance Company of America | JAN F. GADOW, W. WRIGHT HILL, 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 - Stacking uninsured motorist coverage - Class II insureds - Commercial umbrella policy - Section 83-11-111 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Daniel Meyers sued his employer’s insurer, Safeco Insurance Company of America, claiming he was entitled to stack underinsured motorist insurance benefits on his employer’s fleet of vehicles to compensate him for damages resulting from an auto accident while in the course of his employment. Safeco moved for summary judgment which the court granted. Meyers appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In Mascarella v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 833 So. 2d 575 (Miss. 2003), the Court held that Mascarella only had the right to stack the uninsured motorist coverage of the accident vehicle with his own vehicle(s)’ coverage (i.e. Mascarella could not, as a Class II insured, engage in intrapolicy stacking). Therefore, because Mascarella had no uninsured motorist coverage on his own vehicle, he was left with the accident vehicle’s $25,000 of coverage. Mascarella did not definitively overrule the cases contrary to its holding. However, to the extent previous decisions held Class II insureds were entitled to uninsured motorist benefits beyond those for which a named insured contracted, they are overruled today. The automobile insurance policy of May and Co., Meyers’ employer, explicitly provides coverage for Meyers’ vehicle on its designation page and also makes clear that coverage of Meyers’ vehicle is part of the consideration for which May and Co. paid its insurance premium. Despite the fact that the contract subsequently includes contradictory language precluding liability for employee vehicles, the ambiguity is resolved in favor of May and Co. and its employees. Therefore, the policy does cover Meyers’ vehicle. May and Co.’s business automobile policy made no provision for or against uninsured motorist coverage. Therefore, the statutory minimum of $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident is read into the contract. Even so, under Mascarella, only the uninsured motorist coverage of the accident vehicle applies to Meyers. Therefore, Meyers is only entitled to $10,000 of uninsured motorist coverage under the May and Co. business automobile liability policy. He is allowed to stack this coverage with any personal uninsured motorist coverage he may have; however, there is no evidence in the record of any personal coverage, leaving him with $10,000 of uninsured motorist coverage. The policy makes clear Meyers is covered by the commercial umbrella policy. Under section 83-11-111, excess liability policies are exempt from the provisions of the uninsured motorist act; furthermore, May and Co.’s commercial umbrella liability policy explicitly excludes coverage stemming from uninsured motorist policies. Therefore, the umbrella policy which provides excess liability coverage beyond that of the business automobile policy is exempt from the provisions of the uninsured motorist act, and Meyers is not entitled to any uninsured motorist coverage under that policy. The tortfeasors in this case carried $1.5 million of liability coverage. Therefore, as a matter of law, Meyers’ uninsured motorist coverage consequently falls $1,490,001.00 short of the amount required to entitle him to uninsured motorist benefits. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
