State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Moyer
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01534-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01534-COA ; 2009-CT-01534-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-14-2010 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Reversed and rendered. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Satisfaction of judgment - M.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-24-2009 Appealed from: QUITMAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Al Smith Disposition: GRANTED JUDGMENT FOR $10,000 FOR INSURED AGAINST HER UNINSURED- MOTORIST INSURER AND DENIED INSURER A SETOFF FOR INSURED’S SETTLEMENT WITH THIRD-PARTY TORTFEASOR Case Number: 97-009 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company |
H. SCOT SPRAGINS, GOODLOE TANKERSLEY LEWIS |
||
| Appellee: | Nancy Moyer | JOHN B. GILLIS |
|
|
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 - Satisfaction of judgment - M.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jack Butler was found liable for a total of $10,000 damages that Nancy Moyer sustained when Butler’s and Moyer’s cars collided. Moyer had previously settled with Butler for more than the value of the $10,000 judgment but less than the limits of Butler’s auto liability policy. However, Moyer had also filed a claim for uninsured-motorist benefits against her insurance provider, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Despite State Farm’s argument that it should not be held liable for the jury’s damages award because Butler did not qualify as an uninsured motorist, the court ordered State Farm to satisfy the $10,000 judgment arising from the jury’s verdict. State Farm appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Moyer argues that State Farm is barred from arguing that it is entitled to a setoff. Moyer takes the position that because State Farm never entered Moyer’s policy into evidence, State Farm is not entitled to a setoff. This appeal does not turn on the setoff provisions of Moyer’s insurance policy. Instead, this appeal turns on Butler’s settlement, whether he qualified as an uninsured motorist, and the precise language of the jury’s verdict. The jury found that Butler – not State Farm – was negligent and liable for Moyer’s damages. By proper jury instruction, the jury was instructed to quantify all of Moyer’s damages arising from the auto accident that occurred in 1994. The jury found that Moyer had sustained a total of $10,000 in damages as a result of Butler’s negligence. However, through his State Farm auto liability policy, Butler had previously paid Moyer more than $16,000 in damages. Moyer did not present any evidence that Butler had exhausted the policy limits of his insurance. Moreover, Moyer did not present any evidence that Butler qualified as an underinsured motorist or an uninsured motorist under Moyer’s policy. Under the precise circumstances of this case, as Moyer’s uninsured-motorist-insurance provider, State Farm could only be responsible for the damages attributed to Butler if Butler qualified as an uninsured motorist. Consequently, State Farm is not obligated to satisfy the jury’s award of damages for negligence attributed to Butler that had already been satisfied by Butler. A plaintiff is only entitled to one satisfaction. Accordingly, the circuit court erred when it denied State Farm’s motion for satisfaction of judgment under M.R.C.P. 60(b)(5). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
