Wooten v. Miss. Farm Bureau Ins. Co.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CA-02457-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-02457-SCT ; 2003-CA-02457-SCT ; 2003-CA-02457-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Date: 03-02-2006
Opinion Author: Graves, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Insurance - Medical payments provision - Public policy argument
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Easley, JJ.
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-01-2004
Appealed from: Marion County Chancery Court
Judge: Sebe Dale, Jr.
Case Number: 2003-0083-G-D
  Consolidated: Consolidated with 2005-CA-00303-SCT Bethany Wooten, a Minor, by and through Her Parents, Next Friends, and Guardians, Betty Wooten and Charles Wooten v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance Company; Marion Chancery Court; LC Case #: 2003-0083-G-D; Ruling Date: 12/01/2004; Ruling Judge: Sebe Dale, Jr.

Note: The Motion for Rehearing is denied. The original opinion is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Bethany Wooten, a Minor, by and through Her Parents, Next Friends, and Guardians, Betty Wooten and Charles Wooten




AUSTIN R. NIMOCKS



 

Appellee: Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance Company PATRICK H. ZACHARY  

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 - Medical payments provision - Public policy argument

Summary of the Facts: The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Bethany Wooten was injured during a two-car accident. At the time of the accident, Wooten was a permissive driver of the vehicle owned by her parents and insured under a policy issued by Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance Company. Wooten was covered under the policy, which provided for $15,000 in medical payments coverage. Farm Bureau advised Wooten that it would not pay the bills for medical treatment which was not completed on or before March 31, 2003. This decision was based on language within the policy which stated that payment would be made on medical expenses incurred within one year from the date of accident. Wooten filed her Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, seeking a declaration from the Chancery Court of Marion County that the disputed provision of the medical payments policy be interpreted in a manner contrary to Farm Bureau’s reading of the policy. Farm Bureau filed its answer and moved for summary judgment. The chancellor granted summary judgment to Farm Bureau, and Wooten appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Medical payments provision Wooten argues that the chancery court erred in determining the phrase in Farm Bureau’s medical payments provision was clear and unambiguous and in failing to consider the absence of the word “furnished” from the phrase in making this determination. The Supreme Court has followed the plain meaning and common sense approach when interpreting insurance clauses. The plain, common sense meaning of the phrase “incurred within one year from the date of accident” may sensibly be interpreted to mean that the liability or duty of the insurance company to pay medical expenses may not extend beyond the limitation of one year from the date of the accident. With regard to the chancellor’s failure to consider the absence of the words “and furnished” from the phrase under consideration, Wooten is precluded from making this argument because initially in her Brief in Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, Wooten stated that “other jurisdictions and courts have addressed this issue, but these cases should not be considered by this court because the policy language at issue in those cases is different from the policy language here. Specifically, these cases involve policy language which require that the costs at issue be “incurred for services furnished”, or other similar language involving the words “furnish” or “furnished”. Clearly the use of the term “furnish” places a different meaning on the subject phrase. Thus, in addressing this issue this court should only employ those cases which address identical policy language....” Issue 2: Public policy argument Wooten failed to provide any statutory provision or case law in support of a public policy argument. Also, the Supreme Court has stated that a public policy or statutory directive is not present in the medical payments context. Absent any relevant statutory provisions or case law to support a public policy argument, this is an issue better suited for the Legislature to address.


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