Mercer v. Progressive Gulf Ins. Co.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CA-01796-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-01796-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-29-2004
Opinion Author: Easley, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Insurance - Resident of household
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Graves, 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: 06-13-2003
Appealed from: Tippah County Circuit Court
Judge: Andrew K. Howorth
Disposition: Granted summary judgment for Appellee on the issue of whether Applellant was a member of her father's household for uninsured motorist insurance purposes.
Case Number: T-03-001

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Gloria Mercer




B. SEAN AKINS BART ADAMS



 

Appellee: Progressive Gulf Insurance Company MARTHA BOST STEGALL  

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 - Resident of household

Summary of the Facts: Gloria Mercer was injured in an automobile accident. At the time of the accident, Mercer was driving her 1992 Oldsmobile, not insured by her father's policy, and was hit by an uninsured motorist. Mercer’s father, John Jones, had an automobile insurance policy with Progressive Gulf Insurance Company. Mercer made a claim under her father’s policy claiming that she was a resident of her father’s household and thus an insured pursuant to the policy. Progressive denied the claim and sued Mercer seeking a declaratory judgment of no coverage. The court granted summary judgment for Progressive, and Mercer appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Mercer argues that the intent of the parties and not the physical location of an individual determines who is considered a member of a household. She argues that although she lives in a separate structure on her father’s property, she is dependant on her father for support. The key in determining the intent of the parties is whether they created and maintained a household, and not the existence of a contiguous roof. Mercer does not dispute that she and her children lived in a house that was approximately 100 yards from her father’s residence. In addition, each house had a separate address, mailbox, driveway, utility meters and cable services. Mercer and her children kept clothing, personal items and toys at the separate structure, she cooked a number of meals at this home each week, and she received mail in her separate mailbox. While Mercer went to her father’s home daily and ate some meals and occasionally slept at his house, she nevertheless cooked meals in her house 3-4 days a week. All of the facts demonstrate that Mercer maintained a separate household. Therefore, the court did not err in granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of Progressive.


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