Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Lipscomb, 75 So. 3d 557

Whittington and Cooper sued Lipscomb in tort and for declaratory relief against AIC after a fatal fire at Lipscomb's rental property.
The fire originated July 7, 2006, damaging a two-story building Lipscomb owned; Whittington died and Cooper was injured.
AIC denied coverage based on exclusions for injuries arising from a business or rental of premises not an insured location.
Lipscomb, who operated rental rooms in his home and the apartment building, allegedly relied on advice from his insurance agent; Lipscomb contends he never received the AIC policy.
The trial court denied AIC's motions for summary judgment; the Mississippi Supreme Court granted review and ultimately held no genuine issue of material fact regarding the duty to defend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to defend against the claims.	Whittington argues AIC must defend Lipscomb as the complaint alleges covered conduct.	AIC argues exclusions for business operation and rental premises bar defense.	AIC has no duty to defend Lipscomb under the policy exclusions.
Policy exclusions precluding coverage apply to the conduct.	Whittington maintains some injuries fall within the policy’s broad coverage.	Lipscomb's rental operations and business activity fall squarely within exclusions.	Policy exclusions preclude coverage for the asserted injuries.

Price v. Clark, 21 So.3d 509 (Miss. 2009) (cites Mississippi authority on coverage determinations (No pin cites))
Newell v. Hinton, 556 So.2d 1037 (Miss. 1990) (authority cited regarding insurance and coverage issues)
Thames v. Smith Ins. Agency, Inc., 710 So.2d 1213 (Miss. 1998) (presumption of delivery not applicable to policy delivery here)
State Farm Ins. Co. v. Gay, 526 So.2d 534 (Miss. 1988) (notice delivery principles in insurance context)
Mladineo v. Schmidt, 52 So.3d 1154 (Miss. 2010) (apparent authority framework for insurer-agent representations)