Alfa Ins. Corp. v. Hasselle
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00609-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00609-COA ; 2010-CA-00609-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-09-2011 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Reversed and rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Arguments raised on appeal - M.R.A.P. 4(c) - Exclusion from coverage - Section 63-15-43 Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-25-2010 Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court Judge: David H. Strong Disposition: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ENTERED THAT LIABILITY COVERAGE FOR THE NAMED INSURED IS NOT EXCLUDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE AUTOMOBILE-INSURANCE POLICY Case Number: 08-371-PCS |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Alfa Insurance Corporation |
TOBY JUSTIN GAMMILL
DAVID E. STOVALL |
||
| Appellee: | Thomas Hasselle and Shirley Hasselle | ANGELA TAYLOR MILLER CHARLES E. MILLER |
|
|
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 - Arguments raised on appeal - M.R.A.P. 4(c) - Exclusion from coverage - Section 63-15-43 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Thomas Hasselle struck and injured his wife, Shirley Hasselle, with the couple’s automobile. The Hasselles were both named insureds under an automobile insurance policy issued by Alfa Insurance Corporation. The insurance adjuster for Alfa offered the Hasselles a $40,000 settlement on the claim, but the couple refused the offer. Alfa subsequently realized its initial offer was a mistake as the terms of the liability-coverage portion of the policy excluded Shirley as a named insured and as a family member. However, Alfa did provide coverage under the policy’s uninsured motorist and medical payment provisions. Alfa filed a request for a declaratory judgment and interpled the funds owed to Shirley. The chancellor entered a declaratory judgment and a subsequent amended declaratory judgment against Alfa; both judgments ruled that Shirley was not excluded under the liability portion of the policy. As there remained additional un-adjudicated counterclaims filed by the Hasselles, the chancellor transferred his judgment and the counterclaims to circuit court. Alfa filed a motion for summary judgment in regard to the counterclaims, which the circuit court granted. Alfa now appeals the chancery court’s ruling in its declaratory judgment and amended declaratory judgment. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Arguments raised on appeal In the appellees’ brief, the Hasselles argue that the language in the policy was ambiguous and breached “an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” Alfa argues that these issues were not raised by Alfa on appeal and are not properly before the Court as the Hasselles failed to file a notice of cross-appeal. Under M.R.A.P. 4(c), once a party files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date on which the first notice of appeal was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this rule, whichever period last expires. However, a party is not required to file a cross-appeal if its only purpose is to urge alternative grounds for affirmance. The Hasselles’ claims are merely to defend the chancellor’s ruling in the declaratory judgments. They do not seek to reverse or alter the chancellor’s judgments. Nor have they sought to reverse or alter the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Alfa. Accordingly, they were not required to bring those issues in a cross-appeal. Issue 2: Exclusion from coverage Reading the Hasselles’ automobile policy in conjunction with section 63-15-43 (the Mississippi Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law), the chancellor stated at trial that Shirley “was not excluded from coverage under the liability portion of the policy[.]” Alfa argues that this ruling by the chancery court was erroneous and is contrary to the holdings of the Mississippi Supreme Court. The policy language stated that Shirley, as a named insured and as a family member, was excluded from liability coverage. The policy provisions in this case are clear and unambiguous. In addition, exclusionary provisions for family members and named insureds from liability coverage are valid and enforceable in this state. Shirley was excluded from liability coverage under the policy terms and only entitled to payment under the uninsured motorist and medical-payments portions of the policy. Accordingly, the chancery court’s findings in its declaratory judgment, and its amended declaratory judgment, were erroneous. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
