State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Acosta, 55046
| Decision Date | 16 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 55046,55046 |
| Citation | 479 So.2d 1089 |
| Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Betty J. ACOSTA, Individually and as Natural Guardian of Donna Acosta and Joseph Q. White, Jr., Conservator of Donna Acosta. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Ernest R. Schroeder, Robert J. Dambrino, III, Carolyn Dohn, Bryan, Nelson, Allen, Schroeder & Backstrom, Pascagoula, for appellant.
C.R. McRae, Pascagoula, for appellees.
Before PATTERSON, C.J., and PRATHER and ROBERTSON, JJ.
Betty Acosta, individually and as the mother and natural guardian of Donna Acosta, sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to recover medical and uninsured motorists benefits under two insurance policies covering two vehicles. Donna, an insured under both automobile policies, was severely injured when hit by an uninsured motorist while driving one of the insured vehicles.
The two policies were issued separately to Betty Acosta and separate premiums were paid. They are identical in language, one covering a 1969 Toyota, involved in the accident; the other a 1978 Monte Carlo, not in the accident. Both policies provided $5,000.00 medical payment and $10,000.00 each person/$20,000.00 two or more persons per accident uninsured motorists coverage. State Farm admitted liability to Donna under the Toyota policy for the $5,000.00 medical payment benefit and $10,000.00 uninsured motorist coverage. They further admitted $10,000.00 uninsured motorist coverage due Donna under the Monte Carlo policy. Prior to suit State Farm paid a $10,000.00 uninsured motorist claim under the Toyota policy to a passenger accompanying Donna when the accident happened.
Betty claimed she was due $5,000.00 medical payment on the Monte Carlo policy as well as $10,000.00 uninsured motorists coverage under each policy. Her suit included a bad faith claim for punitive damages against State Farm.
The jury returned a verdict for State Farm on the punitive damage issue. The trial court determined the policies permitted Betty to recover individually the $5,000.00 medical payment and the $10,000.00 uninsured motorist coverage on the Monte Carlo policy as a result of her losses due to Donna's injuries, but denied recovery under the Toyota policy as the prior payments to Donna and her injured passenger exhausted its per occurrence limit.
State Farm assigns as error:
1. The trial court erred as a matter of law in aggregating per person limits of liability under uninsured motorists coverage in favor of an insured not bodily injured in addition to those aggregated in favor of the bodily injured insured;
2. The trial court erred in aggregating medical payments coverage provided in an insurance policy covering a 1978 Monte Carlo not involved in the accident;
3. The trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest, said award being against the overwhelming weight of authority and evidence.
Betty Acosta cross-appeals, alleging:
1. The trial court erred in failing to inform the jury of its determination that Betty Acosta was entitled to uninsured motorists benefits as a matter of law and the resulting verdict in favor of State Farm was against the overwhelming weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
We are of the opinion the trial court erred in aggregating the liability of State Farm under the Monte Carlo uninsured motorist coverage for Betty because she sustained no bodily injury. This determination is based upon Old Sec. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Clemmer, 455 So.2d 781 (Miss.1984). Therein policy language, similar to that found in the State Farm policy issued to Betty Acosta, was held to limit the per occurrence recovery for damages to the amount stated in the policy declaration. The State Farm policy uninsured motorist coverage agreed:
To pay all sums which the insured or his legal representative shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motorist vehicle because of bodily injury sustained by the insured, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured motorist vehicle ...
The State Farm policy also limited this liability by stating:
(a) The limit of liability stated in the declarations as applicable to "each person" is the limit of the company's liability for all damages, including damages for care and loss of services, arising out of bodily injury sustained by one person in any one accident, and subject to this provision, the limit of liability stated in the declarations as applicable to "each accident" is the total limit of the company's liability for all such damages for bodily injury sustained by two or more persons in any one accident.
For reasons stated in Old Security v. Clemmer, supra, the limit of State Farm's liability (exclusive of medical coverage) for bodily injury sustained by any one person is $10,000.00 per policy. If two or more persons suffer bodily injury the per occurrence clause would be the $20,000.00 limit per policy. Unless there are at least two claimants, under the policy, who have sustained bodily injury, the $20,000.00 limit does not have application. In Old Security v. Clemmer, supra, as here, there was only one injured claimant. Betty Acosta was an insured under both policies but suffered no bodily injury, therefore, the policy limits were reached by the payments to Donna, the injured party.
Other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion. See, United Services Auto Association v. Warner, 64 Cal.App.3d 957, 135 Cal.Rptr. 34 (1977), cited in Old Security v. Clemmer, supra. See also, Dunn v. Travelers Ins. Co., 6 Mass.App. 910, 378 N.E.2d 1007, 1008 (1978); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Cornelsen, 272 Md. 48, 321 A.2d 149, 150 (1974); Skroh v. Travelers Ins. Co., 227 So.2d 328, 330 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1969).
The trial court's award of medical payments to Betty Acosta under both the Toyota and the Monte Carlo policies was error. Medical payments coverage under the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koestler for Ben. of Koestler, In re
...payment coverages in uninsured motorist insurance policies are not subject to stacking. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Acosta, 479 So.2d 1089 (Miss.1985); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Scitzs, 394 So.2d 1371, 1372-73 (Miss.1981); see also, Tucker v.......
-
Moeller v. American Guar. and Liability Ins. Co.
...at the same time reserving the right to deny coverage in event a judgment is rendered against the insured. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Acosta, 479 So.2d 1089, 1092 (Miss.1985). case, by specific language give the carrier the right to select and employ defense counsel. Moreover, whenev......
-
Lepic By and Through Lepic v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co.
... ... an ordinary layman could reasonably expect coverage." Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sandbulte, 302 N.W.2d 104, 113 ... limitation provision, such as "all damages." See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hodges, 221 Ga. 355, 357, 144 ... Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Acosta, 479 So.2d 1089, 1090-91 (Miss.1985); New Hampshire Ins ... ...
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tedford
...the right to deny coverage in event a judgment is rendered against the insured." Id. at 1069 (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Acosta, 479 So.2d 1089, 1092 (Miss.1985)). The Court noted that defending under a reservation of rights creates a conflict of interest between the insured a......