Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Bridges

• Decision Date: 26 October 1977
• Docket Number: No. 49663,49663
• Parties: HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Leverne BRIDGES et al.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 1379

350 So.2d 1379

HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Leverne BRIDGES et al.

No. 49663.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 26, 1977.

Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell & Dukes, Curtis E. Coker, Joel W. Howell, III, Jackson, for appellant.

Holmes & Dukes, James K. Dukes, Hattiesburg, for appellees.

Before INZER, P. J., and ROBERTSON and BOWLING, JJ.

INZER, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

This appeal involves the question of whether the uninsured motorists coverage contained in one policy of insurance insuring three automobiles for which a separate premium was charged and paid on each automobile can be aggregated or stacked to cover the damage suffered by an insured. The case comes to this Court from the Circuit Court of Forrest County wherein it was held that the coverage could be aggregated or stacked. We affirm.

The case was tried by the circuit judge on a stipulation of facts without the intervention of a jury. It was stipulated that the plaintiffs were the father, mother, and the three brothers of Timothy Wayne Bridges, who died of injuries received when he was negligently struck by a hit and run driver on March 31, 1974. On the date of the accident, the policy in question issued by Hartford Insurance Group was in full force and effect. It was stipulated that deceased was an insured under the terms of the policy and his death was proximately caused by the negligent acts of the hit and run driver. It was also stipulated that defendant insurance company denied that coverage under the uninsured motorists section of its policy was in the amount of $30,000, but admitted that coverage under the policy amounted to $10,000.

The issue raised by the pleadings and stipulation was submitted to the trial judge who wrote an opinion which indicates that the judge gave considerable thought and study to the issue involved. His opinion merits being set out in full in this opinion, and it reads as follows:

This cause was heard by the Court on written stipulation of facts submitted jointly by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant and on memoranda briefs. The written stipulation of facts filed in the cause is adopted by reference and included as a part of this opinion and as the facts governing this opinion.

The question of law is whether uninsured motorists coverage on three separate automobiles in one policy of insurance can be aggregated or stacked.

Defendant, in stipulation, has tendered the sum of ten thousand dollars to the Plaintiffs and has admitted the liability under the policy, with its sole defense being the "limits of liability" under paragraph four of Section III of the uninsured motorists coverage provided by the policy. The Defendant continues to use a policy of insurance which contains other provisions which have been held to be void as in conflict with the statutes of this State.

It is the holding of this Court, based on the rationale of Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Mary Roberts, Guardian of the Estate of Drexel Ray Roberts, a minor, (323 So.2d 536 (Miss.1975)), that uninsured motorists coverage contained in one policy of insurance insuring three automobiles, and for which a separate premium was paid, can be aggregated or stacked; i. e., Defendant's policy of insurance affords a maximum of thirty thousand dollars coverage to Plaintiffs' decedent.

This holding requires that Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 291 So.2d 699 (Miss.1974), be distinguished. In Talbot, there was only one insurance policy with only one uninsured motorist endorsement covering a fleet of four automobiles. The Court, in Talbot, determined that the "limits of liability" provision in the defendant's policy was clear and unambiguous and denied insured the aggregate amount of uninsured motorist coverage. That clause limited liability to the "amount specified by the financial responsibility law of the state. . . ." The Limits of Liability provision of the policy issued by Defendant in this case contained the identical language as that provision of the policy in the Alabama case of Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd. v. Jackson (289 Ala. 673), 270 So.2d 806 (Ala.1972), and which opinion is cited in the dissenting opinion of four justices in Talbot at page 707. That provision is as follows:

The...