Bradley v. Viking Insurance, 56 F.4th 1011

In March 2016 Angela Hawkins applied for auto insurance with Viking; the application required reporting all household members of legal driving age and "regular operators."
Hawkins did not disclose her son, DeMarkus Bradley, who lived with her and was of driving age and a regular operator; she never added him during renewals through April 2018.
In April 2018 Bradley was driving Hawkins’ vehicle and was struck by an uninsured motorist; he submitted a claim under the policy’s uninsured motorist (UM) coverage.
Viking denied the UM claim citing a policy provision excluding coverage when a regular operator was not reported; Viking later placed Bradley on the policy and raised the premium.
The district court held the unnamed-driver exclusion was ineffective under Mississippi’s UM statutes but found Hawkins’ nondisclosure was a material misrepresentation that allowed Viking to deny coverage; summary judgment for Viking was entered.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed: unnamed-driver exclusions cannot eliminate the statutory UM minimum, but an insurer may deny coverage (or void a policy) for material misrepresentations in the application.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of unnamed-driver exclusion against UM statute	Bradley is an "insured" under the UM statute; policy cannot limit statutory UM coverage	Policy provision is a valid limitation if clear and unambiguous	Exclusion invalid to the extent it reduces statutory minimum UM coverage; cannot carve out mandatory coverage
Effect of applicant's failure to list household driver (misrepresentation)	Hawkins' omission cannot defeat statutorily mandated UM protection for an insured	Hawkins knowingly omitted a required fact; omission was material and permitted denial or rescission	Insurer may deny coverage (or void policy) for material misrepresentations; Viking properly denied Bradley's UM claim

Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Payne, 603 So. 2d 343 (Miss. 1992) (named-driver exclusions found void as against public policy under UM statute)
Safeway Ins. Co. v. Dukes, 185 So. 3d 977 (Miss. 2015) (false warranty/omission on application makes policy voidable)
Carroll v. Metro. Ins. & Annuity Co., 166 F.3d 802 (5th Cir. 1999) (standard for material misrepresentation under Mississippi law)
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Bridges, 350 So. 2d 1379 (Miss. 1977) (discussion of limiting UM coverage and requirement of clear/unambiguous language)
Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Powell, 336 So. 3d 1079 (Miss. 2022) (ambiguities in insurance policies construed in favor of the insured)