Bell v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London
200 So. 3d 447
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Emma and John Bell owned a Port Gibson property with two structures: a large wood-framed barn (≈6,000–8,000 sq ft, no plumbing/electric) and a separate ~900 sq ft steel building used as a yoga studio with plumbing/electric.
- Emma applied for insurance through SouthGroup; the application and policy described and insured a single 900 sq ft all-steel building for $75,000; the application/policy were not read by the Bells.
- The barn collapsed in May 2012; Underwriters inspected, retained a forensic engineer who concluded the metal building was a separate, independent structure, and denied coverage because the policy described only the smaller steel building.
- Bells sued Underwriters, TAPCO, and SouthGroup for coverage, bad faith, negligence, and fraud; Underwriters reopened investigation, requested an EUO, which Emma refused; they moved for summary judgment.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for all defendants, concluding the policy unambiguously covered only the steel building, the Bells were charged with knowledge of the policy (duty to read), and without coverage there could be no bad-faith claim; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the barn was covered under the policy | Barn and studio were one building (connected by a walkway); coverage should include barn | Policy/declarations and application describe only a 900 sq ft steel building; barn is different and not listed | Policy unambiguous; only the steel building covered; barn not covered |
| Adequacy of insurer's investigation / bad-faith denial | Underwriters denied coverage in bad faith and failed to investigate properly | Insurer had a reasonable basis to deny (policy language and inspection); without coverage no bad-faith claim | No coverage existed; insurer entitled to deny; bad-faith claim fails as a matter of law |
| Claims for negligence/fraud/negligent misrepresentation against agent/insurer | Bells reasonably relied on agent’s representations that barn was covered | Bells had the policy and application and failed to read them; imputed knowledge defeats reliance | Duty-to-read imputed knowledge; negligence/fraud claims fail for lack of reasonable reliance |
| Timeliness of appeal | N/A (Bells appealed) | Notice of appeal untimely due to Rule 54(b) entry or entry date confusion | Appeal timely: the Rule 54(b) entry was defective and notice was filed within 30 days after docket entry |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayne v. The Doctors Co., 145 So. 3d 1175 (Miss. 2014) (insurance policy interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Robichaux v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins., 81 So. 3d 1030 (Miss. 2011) (insured charged with knowledge of policy terms; duty to read)
- Mladineo v. Schmidt, 52 So. 3d 1154 (Miss. 2010) (imputed knowledge/duty-to-read doctrine and its effect on reliance claims)
- Stubbs v. Miss. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins., 825 So. 2d 8 (Miss. 2002) (insurer bad-faith claim requires existence of coverage on the underlying claim)