Chevis v. Miss. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00861-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 07-21-2011 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-13-2011 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Finality of judgment - M.R.C.P. 54(b) - Scope of policy Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Dissenting Author : Russell, J. Dissent Joined By : Irving, P.J., and Myers, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-21-2010 Appealed from: Hancock County Circuit Court Judge: John C. Gargiulo Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE Case Number: 08-0514 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Dr. Bertin C. Chevis |
JOHN F. KETCHERSIDE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mississippi Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company | JOHN A. BANAHAN RYAN ANTHONY FREDERIC | ||
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 - Finality of judgment - M.R.C.P. 54(b) - Scope of policy |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dr. Bertin Chevis purchased two separate policies to cover his office building: a named-perils policy from Mississippi Farm Bureau that excluded windstorm damage, and a windstorm and hail damage policy from Mississippi Windstorm Underwriting Association. Believing he was under-compensated for his building’s total loss caused by wind damage from Hurricane Katrina, Chevis sued Farm Bureau and MWUA, along with the agents who sold him the two policies and the companies that adjusted his loss. The circuit court granted Farm Bureau’s motion for summary judgment, finding its policy did not cover Chevis’s wind damage. The circuit court then granted Farm Bureau’s motion to certify the judgment as final against Farm Bureau under M.R.C.P. 54(b). |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Finality of judgment The circuit court’s grant of summary judgment only affected Farm Bureau and was not directed at the other remaining defendants—MWUA, Audubon, and AIG Claim Services. Under M.R.C.P. 54(b), a judgment affecting less than all the defendants in a multi-defendant lawsuit is not final except upon an expressed determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an expressed direction for the entry of the judgment. Here, the circuit court, by granting Farm Bureau’s Rule 54(b) motion and entering an agreed order finally dismissing Farm Bureau, entered a final judgment in a definite, unmistakable manner. Because the circuit court’s reasons for granting the final judgment are obvious from the record, there is no justice in delaying Chevis’s appeal against Farm Bureau until his claims against other defendants are resolved. Issue 2: Scope of policy Chevis argues that the circuit court erred by finding, as a matter of law, Farm Bureau’s policy excluded Chevis’s damage; and that Farm Bureau’s liability to Chevis extends outside the coverage of the policy because it sold Chevis a “Business Package of Insurance.” Because Farm Bureau undisputably showed its policy did not cover any of Chevis’s alleged uncompensated Katrina damages, Chevis’s breach-of-contract claim fails as a matter of law. In discovery, Chevis only described the damage to his building for which he is seeking compensation in terms of wind. The circuit court correctly held Farm Bureau’s policy “clearly and unambiguously excluded damage caused by wind.” Chevis, as policyholder, was legally responsible for knowing his policy excluded windstorm damage. And the evidence shows Chevis heeded Farm Bureau’s notice and purchased a separate windstorm and hail damage policy from MWUA, writing a separate check to MWUA that noted in the memo line: “For Wind & Hail Ins.” As a matter of law, there is no reasonable interpretation of “windstorm” that would exclude what Chevis claims caused the damage to his building—hurricane-produced winds. Additionally, contrary to Chevis’s allegations, Farm Bureau had no contractual obligations outside of its policy with Chevis. Chevis argues, because he bought a “Business Package of Insurance” from Farm Bureau, Farm Bureau is responsible for all coverage he purchased from agents Bilbo and Ladner—including the MWUA policy. But Farm Bureau clearly disclosed that it was not providing Chevis coverage for windstorm and hail damage and that such coverage would have to be purchased from MWUA. It is a longstanding tenant of agency law that an agent who discloses its principal cannot be held liable for the contract entered into with the principal. Because Chevis clearly contracted with MWUA, not Farm Bureau, for windstorm coverage, he cannot claim Farm Bureau, under the guise of an agency theory, breached the MWUA policy. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
