784 F.2d 577 (5th Cir. 1986), 85-4649, Reid v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Docket Nº:85-4649
Citation:784 F.2d 577
Party Name:Odie Joe REID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:February 04, 1986
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Page 577

784 F.2d 577 (5th Cir. 1986)

Odie Joe REID, Plaintiff-Appellant,



No. 85-4649

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

February 4, 1986

Page 578

Stanton J. Fountain, Jr. and Patti Cruthirds Golden, Biloxi, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant.

James N. Compton, Biloxi, Miss., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Before POLITZ, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

POLITZ, Circuit Judge:

Odie Joe Reid appeals the grant of summary judgment rejecting his claim for loss of consortium against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, his uninsured motorist insurer, resulting from personal injuries sustained by his wife Juanita Reid. Concluding that the district court properly applied Mississippi law to the undisputed facts, we affirm.

Factual Background

Juanita Reid was seriously injured in an accident caused by a negligent, uninsured motorist. Mrs. Reid, accompanied by Henrietta Zahn, was driving an auto belonging to her and her husband. The Reids owned a second vehicle. State Farm issued an insurance policy on each vehicle. The two policies provided the uninsured motorist protection required by Mississippi law, $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident. Miss.Code Sec. 83-11-101.

Shortly after the accident State Farm settled Mrs. Reid's claims by paying the maximum per person allowance under each policy. In addition to paying this $20,000 to Mrs. Reid, State Farm paid Ms. Zahn the remaining $10,000 per person payment provided by the policy covering the auto involved in the accident.

Odie Joe Reid urges aggregating or stacking the policies and claims entitlement to the remaining $10,000 under the second State Farm policy. He maintains that he is an "insured" and a "person" under the policies. Mr. Reid was not involved in the accident and therefore sustained no bodily injury. His claim derives entirely from the bodily injuries suffered by his wife.


At the outset we note the applicable standards of review. Contract interpretation is a question of law, subject to full appellate review. Turbo Trucking Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, 776 F.2d 527 (5th Cir.1985). That includes a determination as to a contract's facial ambiguity. City of Austin v. Decker Coal Co., 701 F.2d 420...

To continue reading