Alley v. N. Ins. Co.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00481-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-20-2006 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Disclosure of insurance coverage - Stacking of employer’s uninsured motorist coverage Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-31-2005 Appealed from: Hancock County Circuit Court Judge: Stephen Simpson Disposition: Granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee Case Number: 03-0348 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DARRELL ALLEY
|
JOHN R. SANTA CRUZ, PRESTON J. MAUFFRAY |
||
| Appellee: | NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY | TRACE D. McRANEY |
|
|
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 - Disclosure of insurance coverage - Stacking of employer’s uninsured motorist coverage |
| Summary of the Facts: | After having an automobile accident with Betty Meyer, Darrell Alley filed suit against Meyer and Northern Insurance Company of New York, which had issued an insurance policy to Hancock County providing uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Alley was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Hancock County at the time of the accident and was driving an automobile owned by Hancock County. Meyer had in effect a $100,000 automobile liability insurance policy. Alley had no personal uninsured/underinsured coverage. The Hancock County policy provided $25,000 per vehicle uninsured/underinsured coverage for each of Hancock County’s 109 covered vehicles. Alley alleges Meyer’s liability coverage is not sufficient to cover his injuries and damages. Northern Insurance filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Meyer was not underinsured because her $100,000 liability coverage exceeded the Hancock County $25,000 uninsured/underinsured coverage. The court granted the motion for summary judgment, and Alley appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Alley argues that the court erred by failing to consider an affidavit submitted by the Hancock County Chancery Clerk and that Northern Insurance never disclosed the limited availability of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to county employees. An insurance agent has no absolute, court-created duty to explain an insured’s right to purchase additional uninsured motorist coverage over and above the amount of coverage required by statute. Optional coverage which exceeds the statutory limit is not required by statute, and therefore insurance agents should not be required to inform insureds of optional coverage. Northern Insurance also argues that Alley does not have standing to complain of an alleged breach of duty owed by Northern Insurance to Hancock County. Because insurance agents do not have the duty to inform Hancock County of the option of additional coverage, this issue is moot. Alley argues that the court erred in not allowing stacking of Hancock County’s coverage. An employee who drives a vehicle covered under his employer’s business automobile policy is not a Class I insured because the employee is not a named insured. Therefore, Alley was a Class II insured under the Hancock County policy. A Class II insured may stack his own uninsured motorist coverage with that of the vehicle in which he was riding, but a Class II insured does not have the right to stack an employer’s uninsured motorist coverage. Alley argues that Mascarella v. U. S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 833 So. 2d 575 (Miss. 2002) should not be applied to the instant case because Mascarella involved a commercial fleet policy for a closely-held corporation which covered only 8 vehicles and the instant case involves a municipal policy covering 109 vehicles. The type of entity of the named insured – i.e., a corporation or a municipality – is irrelevant. Also, Alley failed to raise this issue before the circuit court, and it is therefore procedurally barred from review. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
