Franklin County Mem'l Hosp. v. Miss. Farm Bureau Ins.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CA-00142-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-28-2008
Opinion Author: Randolph, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Insurance - Duty to defend/indemnify - Public entity as insured - Tort Claims Act
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Lamar, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Easley, J., with Separate Written Opinion
Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment; Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-21-2006
Appealed from: Franklin County Circuit Court
Judge: Forrest Johnson
Disposition: The trial court granted summary and final judgment for Farm Bureau on the claims of FCMH and dismissed FCMH’s action against Farm Bureau with prejudice.
Case Number: 04-CV013

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Franklin County Memorial Hospital




Timothy D. Crawley; Lane B. Reed; Robert Lee Grant



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Mississippi Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company Sam S. Thomas  

    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 - Duty to defend/indemnify - Public entity as insured - Tort Claims Act

    Summary of the Facts: Boyce Dover filed suit against Franklin County Memorial Hospital and Sydneye Marie Jordan, an employee of FCMH, for personal injuries related to an automobile accident between Dover and Jordan. At the time of the accident, Jordan was operating her personal vehicle but was on an errand on behalf of her employer, FCMH. After the complaint was filed, Dover agreed to dismiss Jordan, in her individual capacity, as a defendant. The agreed order dismissed Jordan with prejudice as to all claims which were or could have been raised against her. FCMH sought leave of court without objection from Dover to file a complaint for declaratory judgment against Mississippi Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, the insurer of Jordan’s vehicle. The trial court entered an agreed order to that effect. FCMH alleged that Farm Bureau had a duty to defend FCMH as its insured; to reimburse FCMH its costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees expended to defend Dover’s lawsuit; and to indemnify FCMH as to any judgment against it. The trial court took under advisement FCMH’s motion for partial summary judgment against Farm Bureau. The case was set for a bench trial as to Dover’s claims against FCMH. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court awarded Dover a judgment in the amount of $55,000, finding FCMH’s employee, Jordan, to be ninety percent at fault and Dover ten percent at fault, resulting in a final judgment for Dover in the amount of $49,500 against FCMH. FCMH argued that Farm Bureau was responsible for paying the damages. The trial court granted summary and final judgment for Farm Bureau on the claims of FCMH and dismissed FCMH’s action against Farm Bureau with prejudice. FCMH appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: The dismissal of claims against Jordan, in her individual capacity, was premised upon the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. FCMH argues that the trial court erred in holding that the dismissal of Jordan individually also served to act as a release of her insurance carrier, as FCMH was an “Insured” under the policy. FCMH argues that while it is a “public entity” as defined by the Tort Claims Act, the Act does not contain any language which could be construed as limiting the right of a ‘public entity’ to be an ‘insured’ under a policy of insurance. The trial court strayed from the pivotal issue by focusing on the absence of Jordan’s personal liability to Dover. However, Jordan’s personal immunity does not absolve FCMH from liability for Jordan’s negligence. As FCMH was declared liable, the focus of the inquiry should have been whether FCMH was an insured under the Farm Bureau policy, and if so, whether FCMH was entitled to the protections afforded by the liability coverage provisions. Unquestionably, FCMH is an additional insured under the Farm Bureau policy. As such, it is entitled to the contractual benefits provided by the language of the Farm Bureau policy, which clearly and unambiguously covers employers as insureds. The pertinent clause of the Farm Bureau policy declares, “Under Coverages A and B, the unqualified word “Insured” means the named Insured . . . any person or organization legally responsible for its use, provided the actual use of the automobile is by the named Insured or spouse or with permission of either.”Although FCMH was not the named insured, the same duty is owed to an unnamed party to a contract and a named party. Clearly, FCMH was an “organization legally responsible,” and as an insured, FCMH is entitled to the same benefits, protections and coverages provided by Farm Bureau to its named insured. The failure of Farm Bureau to exclude Mississippi state or local governments or any of their agencies, departments or services validates FCMH’s claim that it is indeed an insured. Thus, Farm Bureau was contractually obligated to defend and/or indemnify FCMH as an additional insured by the language of Farm Bureau’s contract of insurance.


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