Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Williams
Decision Date | 02 September 1993 |
Docket Number | CA-0790 |
Citation | 623 So.2d 1005 |
Parties | AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY v. Hal Otis WILLIAMS, Sr., Individually, Hal Otis Williams, Sr., as Administrator of the Estate of Hal Otis Williams, Jr., Mechell Williams and Nedra Williams, Minors, By and Through Hal Otis Williams, Sr., as Natural Father and Next Friend. 89- |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
David A. Barfield, Kirkland Barfield & Moore, Jackson, Steven C. Panter, Marietta, GA, for appellant.
James Ed Brown, Starkville, for appellees.
Jonathan B. Fairbank, John Jones Law Office, Jackson, amicus curiae.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
McRAE, Justice, for the Court:
Aetna Casualty and Surety Company appeals a judgment from the Chancery Court of Oktibbeha County awarding the estate of Hal Otis Williams, Jr., $20,000 under the uninsured motorist provisions of an automobile policy held by Hal Otis Williams, Sr. The threshold issue on appeal is whether an unemancipated minor of divorced parents is a resident of the household of both parents for purposes of the Uninsured Motorist Act. 2 We affirm the chancellor's finding that the minor decedent was a resident of both parents' households, thereby entitling his estate to uninsured motorist benefits under the Aetna policy.
FACTS
Hal Otis (Junior) Williams, Jr., a nineteen-year-old student at Mississippi State University, was killed in a two-car accident on May 30, 1987. Neither the car in which he was riding as a passenger nor the other vehicle involved were covered by liability insurance. The present suit arose from Junior's father's attempt to recover against Aetna Insurance Company under his uninsured motorist policy.
Junior's parents, Hal Otis Williams, Sr. (Williams), and Mary Frances Williams (Mary Williams) were divorced on February 11, 1982. Mary Williams was awarded permanent custody of the couple's three minor children, subject only to reasonable visitation rights with Williams.
The record indicates that Junior had his own bedroom at each parent's home. He also kept some of his personal items at a friend's dormitory room on the Mississippi State campus, where he often stayed on weekends and during football season.
At the time of his death, Junior's mailing address on his school records and driver's license was listed as 59 Bennett Drive, Starkville, Mississippi, his mother's home. Williams stated that this address was used in order to facilitate Junior's school loans.
Williams purchased a used car for Junior, and paid for its maintenance and frequent repairs. He carried Junior on his health insurance policy and, until changes were made in the tax laws in 1987, listed Junior and his two sisters on his tax returns as dependents.
At the time of Junior's death, Williams had an automobile liability insurance policy with Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (Aetna) with $20,000 uninsured motorist coverage on the two automobiles he owned. Paragraph II(a) of the policy states:
II. PERSONS INSURED
Each of the following is an insured under this insurance to the extent set forth below:
(a) the named insured and, while residents of the same household, the spouse and relatives of either. (Emphasis added).
This policy language follows exactly the definition of "insured" provided by Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 83-11-103(b) (Supp.1986).
Junior died intestate, and Williams was appointed administrator of Junior's estate. Junior's heirs were Williams, Mary Williams, and his sisters, Mechell and Nedra.
On July 8, 1987, Williams' attorney, James E. Brown, wrote to Aetna demanding payment of $20,000 in uninsured motorist benefits to Junior's estate. Aetna requested signed affidavits stating that neither vehicle involved in the accident was covered by liability insurance as well as proof that Junior was "regularly residing in the household of Hal Otis Williams, Sr., our named insured." In response, Williams sent Aetna the requisite affidavits regarding the accident as well as two additional affidavits as proof that "for some time prior to the death of HAL OTIS WILLIAMS, JR., that he was a resident at 105 Churchill Circle, Starkville, Mississippi, which is the residence of the decedent's father Hal Otis Williams, Sr." One was signed by Williams, the other, by Junior's sister, Nedra.
After receiving these affidavits, Aetna sent a check to James E. Brown for $20,000 payable to Williams, Mary Williams, Nedra Williams, Mechell Williams and James E. Brown, along with a release. Williams signed the release at Brown's office. He then took it home and, without their permission or knowledge, signed the names of Mary Williams, Nedra and Mechell on the release as well as on the check. Two checks were later written from Brown's trust account, where the original check had been deposited, one payable to Williams for $9,000 and one payable to Williams and Nedra for $4,334. The remainder of the $20,000 ($6,666) was retained by Brown as attorneys' fees.
On November 27, 1987, Mary Williams filed suit in federal court against her automobile insurance carrier, Maryland Casualty Company, seeking to recover uninsured motorist benefits as a result of Junior's death. She claimed that Junior was a resident of her household at the time of his death, and therefore that she was entitled to recover uninsured motorist benefits. Approximately one month after it paid Williams' claim, Aetna learned of Mary Williams' suit against Maryland Casualty. On June 30, 1989, Aetna filed a complaint against Williams, his daughters and his attorney in the Oktibbeha County Chancery Court for return of the funds, alleging fraud in securing payment under the policy.
At the February 20, 1988, hearing in chancery court, Mary and Nedra Williams, as well as several of Junior's friends, testified that Junior spent most of his time at his mother's house. Williams and his wife offered testimony about the time Junior spent with them, particularly in the last few weeks before his death, after Junior and his mother had an argument about a six-pack of beer.
Following the hearing, the chancellor rendered a bench opinion finding that while Williams had forged the names of Mary Williams, Nedra Williams and Mechell Williams on the release as well as on the endorsement of the check from Aetna, the affidavits were not forged, and thus there had been no fraud in obtaining payment of the claim.
The chancellor further found that although Junior was principally a member of his mother's household, he was also a resident of his father's household. The chancellor held:
Just because this mother and father are uncooperative is not sufficient of itself for this Court to determine and so adjudicate that children of divorced parents do not remain residents of both households. The divorce decree in no wise terminates parental rights, duties and obligations. If the insurance carriers are desirous of precluding children similarly situated, they may do so by expressed contractual provision.
In the final judgment, the chancellor noted that:
The Court finds factually that the decedent was a resident of both households at the time of his death, and that under the facts presented to this Court, children of divorced parents may establish two residencies, one with each parent, and thereby become an insured of either or both parents, under the terms and conditions of the insurance contract relating to uninsured motorist coverage.
The chancellor accordingly dismissed Aetna's claim, but removed Williams as administrator of the estate because of his handling of the claim proceeds.
Aetna appeals from an adverse ruling, asserting primarily that the minor decedent was a resident of his mother's household, but not of the household of his father.
LAW
In this case, we are called upon to determine whether a minor child of divorced parents may be considered a "resident of the same household" of both parents pursuant to the language of the Uninsured Motorist Act, Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 83-11-103(b) (Supp.1986). The uninsured motorist policy Aetna issued to Hal Williams, Sr. expressly followed the statutory definition of the term "insured," providing coverage for Williams and all relatives who reside in his household. That Junior was his father's relative is beyond question. However, Aetna asserts that at the time of his death, Junior was not a resident of his father's household, notwithstanding that Junior maintained a room at his father's house in which he kept clothes and other personal belongings; that Williams helped provide for his son's material needs, including buying him a car and giving him money; that Junior was named on Williams' hospitalization policy and that Williams claimed Junior as a dependent on his tax returns until the 1986 Tax Reform Act prevented a non-custodial parent from claiming the minor child as a dependent regardless of the amount of support paid over and above the parent that had paramount custody. 3 According to Aetna's rationale, it does not matter that Junior, despite being in the legal custody of his mother, was still his father's minor son and thus also an integral part of his father's family. However, because two parents can no longer live together, their responsibilities to their children do not change and the children remain a part of each parent's family.
The chancellor expressly found as follows:
[B]oth the father and mother of the decedent, who were divorced, maintained separate households and residency in Starkville, Oktibbeha County, Mississippi, and that the decedent under the proven facts was a resident of the mother's household and also of the father's household, and that as envisioned by the contract of insurance before the Court, the decedent was a resident of his father's household and was an insured under the terms and conditions of the insurance contract.... The Court finds that just because parents are divorced and uncooperative this does not constitute sufficient facts to say that children of divorced parents do not remain residents of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boatner v. Atlanta Speciality Ins. Co.
...presented in this case.4 See Johnson v. Preferred Risk Auto. Ins. Co., 659 So.2d 866, 871-72 (Miss.1995); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Williams, 623 So.2d 1005, 1008 (Miss.1993); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 613 So.2d 1179, 1181 (Miss.1992); Payne, 603 So.2d at 345; Harris v. Magee,......
-
McLeod v. Allstate Ins. Co., 1999-CA-02080-SCT.
...given in this section shall apply only to the uninsured motorist portion of the policy. ¶ 11. A similar case, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Williams, 623 So.2d 1005, 1006 (Miss.1993), held that the decedent son, a nineteen-year-old unemancipated minor child of divorced parents, could be consider......
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Yelverton
...law recognizes that "residence is an entirely different and more flexible concept" than domicile. See Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Williams, 623 So.2d 1005, 1009 (Miss. 1993). Moreover, Nationwide would have the Court declare Rebecca Laffite and Justin Grant residents of the Yelverton h......
-
Russ v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv195-KS-MTP
...to follow in diversity actions,5 has held "[g]enerally, a person may reside in more than one household." Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Williams, 623 So. 2d 1005, 1009 (Miss. 1993). In Aetna, the court distinguished "domicile", of which a person can only have one, from "residence", which is a mor......