Reid v. Miss. Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co.
Docket Number: | 2009-CA-02040-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-02040-COA ; 2009-CT-02040-SCT |
|
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-14-2010 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Duty of agent Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, P.J. Procedural History: Stay for Arbitration Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-20-2009 Appealed from: Lawrence County Circuit Court Judge: Prentiss Harrell Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO DEFENDANT Case Number: 2008-254H |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Susan Reid, Individually, and On Behalf of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of William Reid, Deceased |
C. VICTOR WELSH III |
||
Appellee: | Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company | DALE GIBSON RUSSELL, ELLEN PATTON ROBB |
|
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 of agent |
Summary of the Facts: | Susan Reid, individually and on behalf of the wrongful-death beneficiaries of William Reid, filed suit against Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, alleging that Farm Bureau underpaid uninsured-motorist benefits following William’s death, which resulted from a car accident caused by an underinsured negligent driver. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Farm Bureau. Reid appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Susan argues that she is entitled to an additional $75,000 in UM coverage for three vehicles. She claims that, at the time she applied for coverage, the agent failed to adequately explain to her the costs, risks, and benefits of carrying UM coverage over and above the statutory minimum, and if he had explained that to her, she would have opted to carry the maximum amount of coverage. Since her policy provided $50,000 in liability coverage on each vehicle, that was the maximum amount of UM coverage allowed under the statute. However, Mississippi law does not require an insurance agent to explain the costs, risks, and benefits of carrying UM coverage over the statutory minimum. Because there was no duty, there are no fact issues that need to be resolved by trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court