S.C. Ins. Co. v. Keymon
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-02051-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-31-2008 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Negligent supervision and training - Choice of law - Declaratory judgment - M.R.C.P. 57 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, P.J. Dissenting Author : Easley, J., without separate written opinion. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Declaratory Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-03-2006 Appealed from: TIPPAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: Upon granting the Keymons’ motion for declaratory judgment, the trial court entered an order which, inter alia, certified the declaratory judgment as a final judgment pursuant to Miss. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Case Number: T-02-248 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY |
MICHAEL REED MARTZ,
JOHN H. FREELAND |
||
| Appellee: | DANNIE KEYMON AND KIMBERLY KEYMON, I N D I V I D U A L L Y A N D A S J O I N T ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF DAWSON KEYMON, FOR THE BENEFIT OF DANNIE KEYMON, KIMBERLY KEYMON, CHARLIE DYLAN KEYMON, AND THE ESTATE OF DAWSON CLAY KEYMON; AND MERANDA KEYMON | JOSEPH DAVID NEYMAN, JR., MEGAN CARLISLE WILLOUGHBY, ROBERT DALLAS SCHULTZE, GRADY FRANKLIN TOLLISON, III |
|
|
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 - Negligent supervision and training - Choice of law - Declaratory judgment - M.R.C.P. 57 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dannie and Kimberly Keymon and Meranda Keymon filed separate lawsuits against Lawrence McKee, both individually and doing business as McKee’s Stateline Convenience Store, as a result of the store’s sale of beer to a minor who later became intoxicated and caused a vehicular accident in which the infant child of Dannie and Kimberly was killed. In the lawsuits, the Keymons sought monetary damages against McKee as well as a declaratory judgment against McKee’s insurer, South Carolina Insurance Company. These two lawsuits later were consolidated by the trial court. The court granted the Keymons’ motion for declaratory judgment and entered an order which certified the declaratory judgment as a final judgment pursuant to M.R.C.P. 54(b). South Carolina Insurance Company appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Negligent supervision and training South Carolina argues that the insurance policy does not cover the Keymons’ claim of negligent supervision and training of McKee’s Stateline’s employees inasmuch as the language of the policy excludes any damages resulting from providing alcohol to Waldon (the minor who caused the accident). The Keymons argue that the case presents a choice-of-law issue, namely, whether Mississippi or Tennessee law applies. There is no choice-of-law issue inasmuch as both Mississippi and Tennessee construe an ambiguous insurance policy in favor of the insured. Choice of law analysis arises only when there is a true conflict between the laws of two states, each having an interest in the litigation. Both Mississippi and Tennessee clearly hold that an unambiguous policy provision must be strictly construed. South Carolina argues that the plain language of the Liquor Liability Exclusion applies to all claims of negligence. In other words, the sale of the beer to Waldon was the proximate cause of the Keymons’ injuries, no matter what duty the Keymons allege that Stateline breached, including negligent supervision and training. Thus, the policy clearly and unequivocally excluded injuries caused by the sale of alcohol to a minor, and it does not matter what cause of action the Keymons allege because the damages are the same, whether negligence, an intentional tort, or an illegal act. This issue has merit, since the provision must be construed according to the plain language. Issue 2: Declaratory judgment South Carolina argues that the trial judge erred in holding that the insurance policy “does or may” cover the Keymons’ claims. The nebulous language in the order that the policy “does or may” cover the claims at issue was contrary to the provisions of M.R.C.P. 57. As the word “may” is neither affirmative nor negative as required by Rule 57, the trial judge should have stated that the policy of insurance either did or did not cover the claims. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
