Mullen v. Miss. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CA-00058-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00058-COA ; 2010-CA-00058-COA ; 2010-CT-00058-SCT
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-24-2012
Opinion Author: Irving, P.J.
Holding: Reversed and remanded
Additional Case Information: Topic: Insurance - Failure to comply with policy provisions - Failure to submit to examination under oath
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Carlton, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-04-2009
Appealed from: Tippah County Circuit Court
Judge: Andrew K. Howorth
Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ENTERED
Case Number: T-08-254
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Brenda L. Mullen




 CLYDE H. GUNN III W. CORBAN GUNN DAVID N. HARRIS JR. A. NORRIS HOPKINS JR. CHRISTOPHER C. VAN CLEAVE



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company JAMES R. MOORE JR. JANET G. ARNOLD MICHAEL C. GATLING  
    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 - Failure to comply with policy provisions - Failure to submit to examination under oath
    Summary of the Facts: Brenda Mullen filed a complaint against Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, alleging bad-faith breach of contract arising from Farm Bureau’s denial of Brenda’s insurance claim following a house fire. Farm Bureau answered Brenda’s complaint and filed a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment declaring that it had no obligations to Brenda under the policy as a result of her alleged breach of the policy’s provisions. Farm Bureau moved for summary judgment which the court granted. Brenda appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: The law in Mississippi is clear that an insurance policy is rendered void by the insured’s failure to submit to an examination under oath. Furthermore, an insured’s failure to provide financial information constitutes a material breach of the insurance contract and also voids coverage. Brenda argues that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether she failed to fulfill her obligations under the policy related to examinations under oath and requests for financial information. In support of its position that Brenda failed to comply with the policy provision regarding examinations under oath, Farm Bureau cites several cases for the proposition that unsworn statements given to adjusters, agents, or others associated with the insurance claim are insufficient to satisfy the insured’s obligation to give an oral examination under oath. However, all of the cases cited by Farm Bureau involve a critical fact that is not present in this case–willful refusal to comply with these policy provisions on the part of the insured. In fact, Farm Bureau conceded during oral argument that while it believed that letters from Brenda’s attorney were tantamount to a refusal to comply with the policy provisions regarding examinations under oath and requests for financial information, Brenda never refused to comply with these provisions. In the attorney’s correspondence with Farm Bureau’s attorney, he consistently stated that the Mullens remained willing to cooperate with Farm Bureau regarding the resolution of their claim. Additionally, Hopkins explained that the Mullens had no intention of not abiding by the terms of their insurance policy with Farm Bureau. Consequently, there is no evidence of a willful refusal by the Mullens to submit to an examination under oath. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Brenda refused to provide Farm Bureau with the requested financial information. Admittedly, the Mullens did not supply copies of financial documents to Farm Bureau; however, Farm Bureau had a signed financial release and the names of the banks and lending institutions with which the Mullens held accounts, which would have enabled Farm Bureau to obtain the documents necessary for its investigation of Brenda’s claim. Thus, the facts of this case do not support the circuit court’s conclusion that Brenda refused to comply with the policy provisions regarding examinations under oath and requests for financial information.


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