Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Curtis

• Decision Date: 25 July 1996
• Docket Number: No. 92-CA-00699-SCT,92-CA-00699-SCT
• Citation: 678 So.2d 983
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Janice T. CURTIS, individually, and for and on behalf of Richard W. Curtis; Kim C. Cranfield and Mary Elizabeth Curtis, Statutory Heirs of Richard W. Curtis, Jr., Deceased.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 983

678 So.2d 983

MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v.Janice T. CURTIS, individually, and for and on behalf of Richard W. Curtis; Kim C. Cranfield and Mary Elizabeth Curtis, StatutoryHeirs of Richard W. Curtis, Jr., Deceased.

No. 92-CA-00699-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 25, 1996.

Sam S. Thomas, Heidelberg & Woodliff, Jackson, for Appellant.

John E. Ellis, Ellis & Ellis, Vicksburg, for Appellees.

En Banc.

DAN LEE, Chief Justice, for the Court:

On June 23, 1990, Richard W. Curtis, Jr., Deceased (hereinafter the Deceased), was the driver of a 1981 Toyota sedan that was involved in an automobile accident with a vehicle operated by Mabrie Chris Gilmer.The accident proximately caused the death of the Deceased.The Toyota sedan was owned by Raymond Hackler(hereinafter Hackler), a friend of the Deceased and insured by a policy of insurance (No. A055607) issued by Mississippi Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company(hereinafter Farm Bureau Mutual) to Raymond and Christina Hackler.A claim was made against this policy by Janice T. Curtis(hereinafter Curtis), mother of the Deceased, on behalf of the heirs of the Deceased, for uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) benefits, and Farm Bureau Mutual paid the heirs at law and statutory, wrongful death beneficiaries $10,000 in benefits under the terms of this policy.In addition to the 1981 Toyota sedan, the Hacklers owned three other vehicles and insured each with separate insurance policies (Nos. A267135, A648962, andA733336) issued by Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company(hereinafter Farm Bureau Casualty).

In her complaint, Curtis claimed entitlement to the UM benefits, totaling a sum of $30,000, provided through the three additional policies issued by Farm Bureau Casualty although not one of the three vehicles insured under these policies was involved in the accident.Curtis further claimed a right to an award of punitive damages against Farm Bureau Casualty for its refusal to pay UM benefits under the three additional policies.

On November 5, 1991, Farm Bureau Casualty filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, partial summary judgment.This was followed on December 12, 1991, by Curtis's motion for summary judgment against Farm Bureau Casualty.The Honorable Frank G. Vollor, Circuit Court Judge for Warren County, Mississippi, entered final judgment on June 11, 1992, in favor of Curtis as to the right to recover under the three Farm Bureau Casualty policies and in favor of Farm Bureau Casualty as to the claim for punitive damages.

Following the entry of the court's final judgment, Farm Bureau Casualty timely filed its notice of appeal raising the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RENDERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF CURTIS AND AGAINST FARM BUREAU CASUALTY AND AWARDING TO CURTIS THE UM BENEFITS OF POLICYNOS. A267135, A648962ANDA733336 ISSUED BY FARM BUREAU CASUALTY TO HACKLER, FOR A FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF CURTIS AND AGAINST FARM BUREAU CASUALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000 WITH INTEREST

AT THE LEGAL RATE FROM AND AFTER DECEMBER 6, 1990?

II.WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING, WITH PREJUDICE, THE PUNITIVE/EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL DAMAGE CLAIM OF CURTIS AGAINST FARM BUREAU CASUALTY?

Curtis also timely filed her cross-appeal raising the following issue:

III.WHETHER AMBIGUITY IN THE UM ENDORSEMENT MUST BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE INSURED PERMISSIVE DRIVER, OR ALTERNATIVELY,

WHEN THE POLICY LANGUAGE AND UM ENDORSEMENT PROVIDES FOR MULTIPLE COVERAGES AND ISSUANCE OF INSURERS' AUTOMOBILE FLEET POLICY, WHETHER THE MULTI-CARS UM COVERAGES ARE STILL AVAILABLE TO PERMISSIVE DRIVERS ALTHOUGH THE INSURER ISSUES SEPARATE DECLARATION PAGES TO ITS MULTIPLE-CARS POLICY.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Curtis, in her individual and representative capacities, initiated this action in the Circuit Court of Warren County, Mississippi, on February 4, 1991.The complaint alleged that the Deceased was fatally injured in a two-car automobile wreck through the negligence of Gilmer, the uninsured driver of the other car.Curtis, on behalf of the beneficiaries and heirs at law of the Deceased, sought the UM benefits of four insurance policies allegedly issued by Farm Bureau Mutual to Hackler, owner of the car in which Curtis was driving.Curtis's claim for the UM benefits against Farm Bureau Mutual was based on assertions that the Deceased died in an automobile accident as a result of the negligence of an uninsured motorist, Gilmer; that the Deceased was qualified for uninsured liability coverage and entitled to stack the coverage of all four insurance policies held by Hackler; and that the limit of liability for UM coverage was $10,000 on each policy for an aggregate amount of $40,000.Finally, Curtis also claimed a right to recover punitive/extra-contractual damages as a result of Farm Bureau Mutual's intentional refusal to fully pay the aggregate limits of coverage in the four insurance policies in effect and allegedly applicable to the accident.

Farm Bureau Mutual answered the complaint admitting that Curtis was entitled to recover the UM benefits available under the terms of the insurance policy issued by Farm Bureau Mutual to Hackler that covered the vehicle the Deceased was permissibly using at the time of the accident.However, Farm Bureau Mutual denied issuing the three other policies held by Hackler and referred to in Curtis's complaint.

Farm Bureau Casualty voluntarily entered its appearance in the matter by joining in the answer of Farm Bureau Mutual.Farm Bureau Casualty admitted issuing three of the insurance policies referred to in the complaint to Hackler but denied that the Deceased was an "insured" under the terms of any of the three policies they issued to Hackler.

Curtis and Farm Bureau Casualty entered into an agreed stipulation of facts and, pursuant to the stipulation and by further agreement of the parties, Farm Bureau Mutual was dismissed from the lower court action.Both Curtis and Farm Bureau Casualty filed motions for summary judgment, and Farm Bureau Casualty alternatively requested the trial court to dismiss the punitive/extra-contractual damages claim of Curtis.

Finding that the motions of the parties presented questions of law, the trial court ruled on the summary judgment motions of the parties and entered its final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) on June 11, 1991.The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Curtis against Farm Bureau Casualty as to the insurance coverage claim in the amount of $30,000.The trial court, finding no issue of material fact as to the punitive/extra-contractual damages claim, rendered judgment in favor of Farm Bureau Casualty dismissing that claim with prejudice.

Farm Bureau Casualty timely filed a notice of appeal of the judgment entered in favor of Curtis, and Curtis cross-appealed the trial court's dismissal of the punitive/extracontractual damages claim against Farm Bureau Casualty.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Curtis and Farm Bureau Casualty stipulated to most of the relevant facts in a stipulation of facts made a part of the parties' motions for summary judgment.They include:

1.On June 23, 1990, Richard W. Curtis, Jr., Deceased (hereafter "the Deceased") was the [permissible] driver of a 1981 Toyota Sedan that was involved in an automobile accident with a vehicle operated by Mabrie Chris Gilmer("Gilmer").The accident proximately caused the death of the Deceased.

2.Gilmer was an uninsured motorist at the time of the accident.The accident was caused by negligence on the part of Gilmer.The damages to the estate, heirs at law and statutory wrongful death beneficiaries of the Deceased are in excess of $40,000.00.The estate of the Deceased no longer has a claim as a result of the wrongful death of the Deceased since all damages to the estate have previously been paid.

3.Prior to the accident, Farm Bureau Mutual had issued a policy of insurance to Raymond and Christina Hackler, being PolicyNo. A055607, that applied to Deceased and to the vehicle [permissibly] driven by the Deceased at the time of the accident....[This policy provided UM benefits in the amount of $10,000.00, and Farm Bureau Mutual has paid this amount to Curtis.]

4.Prior to the accident, Farm Bureau Casualty had issued three additional but separate policies of insurance to Raymond Hackler ... for UM coverage [for three additional vehicles].These ... Polic[ies]Nos. A267135, A648962andA733336 ... applied to a 1980 Dodge Sedan, a 1983 Nissan Pickup and a 1989 Honda Sedan, respectively, which three vehicles were [also] owned by Hackler.These three vehicles were not physically involved in the accident that resulted in the death of the Deceased.The only vehicle physically involved in the accident which resulted in the death of the Deceased, on which Farm Bureau Casualty or Farm Bureau Mutual had issued an automobile insurance policy, was the automobile [1981 Toyota Sedan] driven by the Decedent with permission [which was covered by insurance policy A055607 issued by Farm Bureau Mutual].The [subject] policies ... issued by Farm Bureau Mutual and Farm Bureau Casualty were in full force and effect at the time of the accident.The named insured, [Hackler,] had not rejected the UM coverage required to be provided pursuant to Section 83-11-101 of the Mississippi Code and had paid separate premiums for the UM coverage on the three policies issued by Farm Bureau Casualty.

5.The three policies issued by Farm Bureau Casualty contain statutory UM, bodily injury coverage with limits of $10,000.00 per person and $20,000.00 per accident.If [Curtis] is determined to be entitled to recover UM benefits under the three [subject] policies issued by Farm Bureau Casualty ... then [Curtis] is entitled to recovery of $30,000.00 in contractual, UM benefits from Farm Bureau Casualty.

6.[Curtis] claims entitlement to stack the UM benefits provided through the four...