Reid v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 February 1986
• Docket Number: No. 85-4649,85-4649
• Citation: 784 F.2d 577
• Parties: Odie Joe REID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 577

784 F.2d 577

Odie Joe REID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 85-4649

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 4, 1986.

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.

Analysis

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(5th Cir.1983).

One seeking summary judgment must establish entitlement as a matter of law, Galindo v. Precision American Corp., 754 F.2d 1212(5th Cir.1985), and the court will review the facts drawing all inferences most favorable to the party opposing the motion, United States Steel Corp. v. Darby, 516 F.2d 961(5th Cir.1975).On appeal we apply the same standards.John v. State of Louisiana, 757 F.2d 698(5th Cir.1985).

In this diversity jurisdiction case, we are Erie -bound to apply the substantive law of Mississippi.The district judge, schooled and skilled in the law of his state, Avery v. Maremont Corp., 628 F.2d 441(5th Cir.1980), analyzed Mississippi's jurisprudence and concluded that Odie Reid was an insured with a valid claim but that his claim for damages was subject to the per person limitation applicable to his wife's claim.We agree with the district judge's application of Mississippi law, buttressed by an opinion rendered by the Supreme Court of Mississippi after the district court's ruling.

Appellant contends that he is an "insured" and is entitled to the status of a "person" under State Farm's uninsured motorist provisions, advancing as dispositive authority the decisions of the Supreme Court of Mississippi in Pearthree v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 373 So.2d 267(Miss.1979)[Pearthree I], andUnited States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Pearthree, 389 So.2d 109(Miss.1980)[Pearthree II].Standing alone, the Pearthree opinions support appellant's position.However, these decisions may not be viewed in a legal vacuum but must be placed appropriately in the mosaic of the continually evolving substantive law of Mississippi.Doing so, and considering the rulings and rationale of the Pearthree decisions in light of subsequent opinions, particularly State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Acosta, 479 So.2d 1089(Miss.1985), andOld Sec. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Clemmer, 455 So.2d 781(Miss.1984), we are convinced that the trial court properly dismissed Reid's claim.

In Pearthree I the Mississippi court held that a child whose mother was killed in an automobile accident was an insured within the ambit of the uninsured motorist coverage, and that the limits of two policies could be aggregated or stacked.The child was considered an insured because she was entitled under Mississippi law to bring an action for the death of her parent.We apply this ruling to Reid's claim.Under Mississippi law Reid may bring an action for loss of consortium.He is accordingly an insured under State Farm's policies.

In Pearthree II, the court equated "insured" with "person."It is this reference upon which Reid principally relies in asserting his independent loss of consortium claim under the uninsured motorist provision.It is this reference which is markedly restricted, or more probably implicitly overruled, by the Clemmer and Acosta decisions.

In Clemmer, cited by the trial judge in granting State Farm's motion for summary judgment, the Mississippi court interpreted a...