Johnson v. Preferred Risk Auto. Ins. Co.

Decision Date03 August 1995
Docket NumberNo. 91-CA-00785-SCT,91-CA-00785-SCT
Citation659 So.2d 866
PartiesRonald Glen JOHNSON and Sara Ballard Johnson v. PREFERRED RISK AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Jim Waide, Tupelo, for appellant.

Herman M. Hollensed, Jr., Bryan Nelson Randolph & Weathers, Hattiesburg, for appellee.

En Banc.

JAMES L. ROBERTS, Justice, for the Court:

I.

INTRODUCTION

Ron and Dee Johnson were injured in an accident with an uninsured motorist on June 10, 1988. At the time of the accident, Ron was temporarily staying with his parents in Columbus, Mississippi, and Dee was temporarily staying with her parents in Plantersville, Mississippi.

Both sets of parents had insurance policies with the Preferred Risk Automobile Insurance Company, including uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. Ron and Dee sought UM benefits under their parents' policies, claiming that they were "residents" of their parents' homes entitled to coverage. The UM coverage in the policies extended to "relatives" of the insured; "relative" was defined as "a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption, who is a resident of your household." Preferred denied coverage on the grounds that neither Ron nor Dee were "residents" of their parents' homes within the policy terms. Ron and Dee sued Preferred to obtain the UM benefits, and summary judgment was granted to Preferred. The Johnsons appeal, citing the following errors:

I. WHETHER THERE ARE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO WHETHER PLAINTIFFS WERE "RESIDENTS" OF THEIR PARENTS' HOUSEHOLDS.

II. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN NARROWLY DEFINING THE TERM "RESIDENT" WHEN ONLY "RESIDENTS" ARE COVERED UNDER AN UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY.

III. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN REFUSING

TO APPLY THE RULE REQUIRING AMBIGUITY IN INSURANCE POLICIES BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF COVERAGE.

Today we expressly overrule and vacate Goens v. Arinder, 248 Miss. 806, 161 So.2d 509 (Miss.1964). We find that Ron and Dee were residents of their parents' households, and eligible to collect UM benefits under the Preferred policies issued to their parents. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 10, 1988, Ronald Glen Johnson ("Ron") and his wife Sara Ballard Johnson ("Dee") were injured in an accident in Lee County, Mississippi, with an uninsured motorist. The Johnson's pickup truck was uninsured. 1

At the time of the accident, Ron was temporarily living with his parents in Columbus, Mississippi, and Dee was temporarily living with her parents in Plantersville, Mississippi. Happily, their separation was not caused by marital discord. Rather, the Johnsons, married in 1986, had been living in Knoxville, Tennessee, while Ron attended graduate school. Ron graduated on June 1, 1988, and the couple planned to move to Little Rock, Arkansas, where Ron had secured a job with Proctor and Gamble. Ron was to begin work on June 24, 1988, and the couple intended to move to Little Rock on June 15, 1988. Ron and Dee stayed with Ron's parents from June 1 through June 3, 1988; Dee then went to her parent's home from June 3 to June 10, 1988. Each spouse attended to personal affairs.

At the time of the accident, both sets of parents had vehicles insured by the Preferred Risk Automobile Insurance Company ("Preferred"). The (Charles) Johnsons had one policy providing UM coverage of $10,000 per person, $20,000 per accident. The UM coverage under this policy extended to the insured, defined as "you or any 'family member.' " "Family member" was defined elsewhere in the policy as "a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption, who is a resident of your household."

The Ballards had two policies, each providing UM coverage of $10,000 per person, $20,000 per accident. In policy # 3533-335, the terms "insured" and "family member" were defined as above. In policy # B3640-845, the UM portion defined "persons insured" as "the named insured and any designated insured and while residents of the same household, the spouse and relatives of either."

By letter dated August 17, 1988, the Johnsons' attorney asserted that on the date of the accident, Ron and Dee were residing with their respective parents, and therefore eligible to receive payment under the UM portions of their parents' insurance policies. Ron's hospital and medical expenses were alleged to total $13,405.73, and Dee's to total $19,900.49, with further expenses anticipated. Ron requested payment of $31,000 for his medical expenses, plus $1,312.50 in lost wages; Dee requested payment of $21,000.

By letter dated December 13, 1988, Preferred's attorney informed the Johnsons' attorney that Preferred was denying payment on the grounds that neither Ron nor Dee were residents of their parent's home at the time of the accident, and were therefore not "family members" entitled to coverage under the policies.

On October 20, 1989, Ron and Dee filed suit against Preferred in the Lee County Circuit Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that they were covered by their parents' policies, and to obtain the UM coverage under each policy.

Ron and Dee were deposed in October of 1988. The following relevant facts and quotations are gleaned from their depositions:

Ron stated that he had accepted the job with Proctor & Gamble on January 7, 1988, as a sales representative in the Little Rock area. On a house hunting trip to Arkansas in late May, he had looked at a number of homes, including the house he and Dee eventually rented, at 608 North Tyler Street. At After Ron's June 1 graduation in Knoxville, Ron and Dee returned to Mississippi to be with their families, to retrieve "a lot of stuff" they had there, and "to take care of things" that needed doing. The couple brought a U-Haul of personal belongings from Knoxville to Mississippi. Dee stated that she went home "because everything that I owned was there." In addition, their wedding gifts were at the Ballards, and Dee wanted to pack those for the move to Arkansas; Ron had "guns and bedroom stuff" at his parents' house in Columbus he needed to pack as well. In addition, Dee's sister was to marry on June 11, 1988, and Dee was in the wedding.

that time, Ron had discussed renting the house with the owner on a month-to-month basis, but had not "secured" the house, nor did he sign the lease until the first week of August, which was subsequent to the accident. In late May, Ron was told that his starting date would be June 24, 1988, and the couple planned to move to Little Rock around June 15, 1988.

Ron agreed that he sent a $50.00 check to Southwestern Bell as a deposit for phone service, providing the 608 North Tyler Street address in Little Rock to the company. The check was stamped paid on June 10, 1988. Dee agreed that she and Ron had talked about living in that house, and that as of June 10, 1988, that is where they felt they would be living. Ron stated that at the time he left Knoxville, he was receiving some mail at the "anticipated address in Little Rock," some mail in Knoxville, and some mail at his parents' home in Columbus. Ron stated that he had moved to Little Rock on August 17, 1988; Dee stated that she and Ron actually moved into the house on September 2, 1988.

Dee stated that on the day of the accident, she had a Tennessee driver's license, obtained in September or October of 1986, and a Tennessee plate on her car. Currently, she had an Arkansas tag; she had not had a Mississippi driver's license or tag during 1988. Ron stated that as of the date of the accident, he had a Tennessee driver's license, and now had an Arkansas license. The accident report gives the Johnson's Knoxville address.

Dee stated that she was registered to vote in Lee County, Mississippi, but had not voted in any Mississippi election since January 1, 1988, and had not voted by absentee ballot during the last two years. She could not remember voting in any Mississippi elections, because she had been "gone." Ron stated that he was registered to vote in Lowndes County; the last time he had voted in any election was 1984. Dee further stated that she and Ron intended to leave their registration in Mississippi, and not register to vote in Arkansas.

Ron stated that upon his move to his parents house on June 1, 1988, his intention was "to reside there for about three weeks" before moving to Arkansas.

Preferred filed a motion for summary judgment on April 12, 1990. On June 4, 1991, the trial court granted summary judgment, holding that Ron was not a resident of his parents' household; Dee was not a resident of her parents' household; and that neither was an "insured" under the meaning of the Preferred policies. The suit was dismissed with prejudice and all costs were assessed to the Johnsons. The Johnsons appealed the grant of summary judgment on July 31, 1991.

III.

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER THERE ARE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO WHETHER PLAINTIFFS WERE "RESIDENTS" OF THEIR PARENTS' HOUSEHOLDS.

II. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN NARROWLY DEFINING THE TERM "RESIDENT" WHEN ONLY "RESIDENTS" ARE COVERED UNDER AN UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY.

III. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO APPLY THE RULE REQUIRING AMBIGUITY IN INSURANCE POLICIES BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF COVERAGE.

While the Johnsons divide their argument into three assignments of error, this appeal concerns a single question: were Ron and Dee "residents" of their parents' households at the time of the accident, under the UM provisions of the Preferred insurance policies?

The Johnsons argue that they were residents of their parents' homes at the time of the accident, "liv(ing) there as family members, sharing in the life of the house and family." The Johnsons contend that the trial judge applied an improperly narrow definition of "resident" to their claims; that Mississippi's public policy favors liberal construction of UM insurance provisions; and that any ambiguity in the policy must...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Boatner v. Atlanta Speciality Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • June 27, 1997
    ...somewhat to account for the unique facts, circumstances, and arguments 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 ......
  • Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • December 10, 1998
    ..."resident." Subsequently, this Court overruled Goens the first time that the case sub judice was on appeal. Johnson v. Preferred Risk Auto. Ins. Co., 659 So.2d 866 (Miss.1995). Based on the applicable law at the time Preferred denied the Johnsons' claim, this Court finds that the denial of ......
  • McLeod v. Allstate Ins. Co., 1999-CA-02080-SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 28, 2001
    ...separate and apart from their parents. Aetna, 623 So.2d at 1011-12. ¶ 15. We have further held in Johnson v. Preferred Risk Auto. Ins. Co., 659 So.2d 866, 868-69 (Miss.1995), that a married couple temporarily residing with their respective parents prior to their moving to a new home, were e......
  • Box v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 13, 1997
    ...1180 (citing Gillespie v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., 343 So.2d 467, 471 (Miss.1977)); see also Johnson v. Preferred Risk Auto. Ins. Co., 659 So.2d 866, 871 (Miss.1995). It is a fundamental requirement that before a person is entitled to recover uninsured motorist coverage, that......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT