State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Scitzs, 52437
| Decision Date | 11 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 52437,52437 |
| Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. v. Kenneth R. SCITZS. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Page 1371
v.
Kenneth R. SCITZS.
Gail A. Crowell, Bryan, Nelson, Allen, Schroeder & Cobb, Gulfport, for appellant.
J. Robert Sullivan, Laurel, for appellee.
Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.
Page 1372
SUGG, Justice, for the Court:
The plaintiff, Kenneth R. Scitzs, filed a declaration in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County seeking judgment against the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., for the sum of $10,000. He alleged he was due this sum under the medical coverage provisions of two policies of insurance issued by the defendant on two vehicles which were not involved in the collision resulting in plaintiff's injuries.
The case was submitted to the trial judge on the following stipulation of facts. On October 16, 1977, the plaintiff, while driving his 1976 model Chevrolet one-half ton pickup truck, was injured in a collision with a vehicle driven by Ray Musgrove. Plaintiff incurred medical expenses totaling $18,979.90 within one year from the date of the collision for treatment of injuries received by plaintiff in the collision. At the time of the collision, plaintiff owned, in addition to the Chevrolet pickup, two other vehicles, a Ford LTD and a Chevrolet Chevette. All three of the vehicles owned by plaintiff were covered by separate liability policies issued by the defendant containing medical payment provisions for which separate premiums were paid. The declarations in each policy described only one vehicle. Each of the policies was issued a different date but were otherwise identical except for the description of the insured vehicle and the premium charged. The maximum medical payment coverage of each policy was $5,000.
The defendant, recognizing its liability under the policy covering the pickup truck involved in the collision, paid the plaintiff the maximum medical payment coverage of $5,000 provided for in the policy covering the pickup truck. Plaintiff's suit was for payment of a like and equal amount under each of the other two policies.
Plaintiff maintained the medical coverage of all three policies applied and he was entitled to "stack" the coverage under the policies. Defendant's position was that the $5,000 paid plaintiff under the policy insuring the Chevrolet pickup was the extent of its liability, and the two policies insuring plaintiff's vehicles which were not involved in the collision did not apply.
The trial court agreed with plaintiff and held that the medical payment provisions of all three policies applied and entered judgment for $10,000. The $10,000 represented the aggregate of the maximum medical payments coverage under the two policies insuring plaintiff's two vehicles which were not involved in the collision.
Defendant's appeal presents the question of whether the medical coverage provisions of the three policies may be aggregated or "stacked." This is a question of first impression in Mississippi. States which have considered the question hold that the question must be determined by construing the provisions of the policies involved in accord with the accepted rules for construing insurance policies. The rules for construction of insurance contracts are firmly established in our cases. See cases in Volume 9 Mississippi Digest, Insurance (1964) under key numbers 146.4, 146.5(1)(2), 146.7(1)(6)(7).
Following are summary statements of these rules of construction:
1. Where an insurance contract is plain and unambiguous, it should be construed as written, like other contracts.
2. Insurance Contracts are construed most strongly against party drafting contract, and most favorably to the policyholder.
3. Where terms of insurance contracts are ambiguous or doubtful, contract must be construed most favorably to insured and against insurer.
4. Insurance contracts must be given a reasonable and sensible interpretation, and where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frank v. Allstate Ins. Co., 60014
...1293 [Me.1982]; Nissenbaum v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 16 Mass.App. 996, 454 N.E.2d 922 [1983]; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Scitzs, 394 So.2d 1371 [Miss.1981]; Tucker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 609 F.Supp. 1574, 1579-1580 [D.C.Miss.1985]; Hempen v. State ......
-
Great Northern Nekoosa v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., Civil Action No. 1:92CV017-S-D.
...policies are construed favorably to insured wherever reasonably possible, particularly exclusion clauses." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Scitzs, 394 So.2d 1371, 1372 (Miss.1981). It is equally well settled law that "the special rules favoring the insured are only applicable when there i......
-
Koestler for Ben. of Koestler, In re, 89-CA-0140
...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. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 609 F.Supp. 1574, 1580 (S.D.Miss.1985). The point is that ......
-
G&B Invs., Inc. v. Henderson (In re Evans)
...to more than one reasonable interpretation, courts apply a construction permitting recovery. State Farm Mut. Aut. Ins. Co. v. Scitzs, 394 So.2d 1371, 1372 (Miss.1981); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 233 So.2d 805, 811 (Miss.1970). If there is an ambiguity within a policy of insur......