Farmland Mut. Ins. Co. v. Scruggs
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00874-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-00874-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-16-2004 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Intentional acts - Occurrence - Public policy Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-23-2002 Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court Judge: Richard Bowen Disposition: Denied summary judgment for Farmland, and entered partial summary judgment for the Scruggses. Case Number: CV01-085 (B)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Farmland Mutual Insurance Company |
J. COLLINS WOHNER
JAMES A. BECKER, JR.
MARC A. BIGGERS
STEVEN CAVITT COOKSTON |
||
| Appellee: | Mitchell Scruggs, Eddie Scruggs, Scruggs Farm Supply, Inc., Scruggs Farm Joint Venture, HES Farms, Inc., MES Farms, Inc. and MHS Farms, Inc. | JAMES LAWTON ROBERTSON JIM WAIDE LISA SCRUGGS |
|
|
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 - Intentional acts - Occurrence - Public policy |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Monsanto Company filed a complaint against Mitchell and Eddie Scruggs and their supply company, Scruggs Farm Supply, Inc., alleging the Scruggses obtained a supply of unlicensed Roundup Ready seed from an unauthorized source and planted it in 2000. The Scruggses had purchased insurance from Farmland Mutual Insurance Company, and later expanded their coverage to include a commercial general liability policy and an umbrella policy. The GCL had a $2 million limit to liability, and the umbrella added another $20 million on top of that. The Scruggses notified Farmland of the pending suit, but were flatly denied coverage on the basis that their actions were intentional. The Scruggses filed a suit against Farmland. The court denied summary judgment for Farmland, entered partial summary judgment for the Scruggses, and entered a preliminary injunction requiring Farmland to defend the suit and also pay all current and outstanding legal bills. Farmland appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Scruggses argue they are protected from Monsanto’s suit by virtue of multiple sections in their Farmland insurance policy, namely the “Property Damage” section, the “Personal Injury” section, the “Duty to Defend” section, and the absence of pertinent exclusions and the inapplicability of the intentional acts exclusion. Simply because the parties disagree about the meaning of a provision of a contract does not make the contract ambiguous as a matter of law. Under the “Bodily Injury and Property Damage” section of the policy, Farmland agreed to pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages, including punitive and exemplary damages, because of bodily injury or property damage to which this insurance applies. The bodily injury or property damage must be caused by an occurrence. The word “occurrence” is defined as an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions. The word “accident” means a sudden unforeseen or unintended event. All of Monsanto’s claims are styled as “willful” or “intentional,” with the last, unjust enrichment, based upon alleged profits from those intentional torts. The entire complaint is carefully worded with repeated references to the Scruggses’ intentional conduct. In addition, the Scruggses’ pattern of conduct has been one of intentional acts. Since the reasonable and unambiguous insurance contract between the Scruggses and Farmland excludes all intentional acts, there is no coverage under the “Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability” section of the policy. In addition, Section III (A)(1)(b)(12) of the policy specifically excludes genetically modified seed from policy coverage. The Monsanto seed is certainly genetically modified. Furthermore, as a matter of public policy, people and businesses cannot purchase insurance coverage for illegal activities. Regarding personal and advertising injury coverage, the policy states that Farmland will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages including punitive and exemplary damages, because of personal injury or advertising injury to which this insurance applies but that no other obligation or liability to pay sums or perform acts or services is covered unless explicitly provided for under the policy. The policy does not cover the torts Monsanto has complained of. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
