632 F.3d 898
5th Cir.2011Background
- Hurst was killed Oct 30, 2004 when his vehicle collided with a Pinewood-owned truck after an earlier heated exchange; Bell was convicted of heat-of-passion manslaughter for the resulting death, not murder.
- Latasha Hurst sued Bell in civil court and Capital City insured Pinewood; Capital City sought declaratory judgment that the collision was excluded by the policy’s “expected or intended injury” exclusion.
- The policy covers injuries caused by an accident but excludes injuries that are expected or intended by the insured; the policy defines accident to include repeated exposure.
- District court granted summary judgment to Capital City, holding Bell’s manslaughter conviction collaterally estopped the defendants from relitigating intent to kill.
- Appellants appeal arguing there remains a question of fact about Bell’s intent and that Mississippi law requires specific intent to injure to trigger the exclusion; Mississippi law on collateral estoppel and privity apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bell’s heat-of-passion manslaughter conviction collaterally estops relitigating intent to kill for policy exclusion | Capital City - conviction bars re-litigation of intent to kill | Hurst - issue remains factually unsettled | Yes; collateral estoppel applies and precludes relitigation |
| Whether the policy exclusion for intentional/expected injury applies given Bell’s conviction | Conviction shows death was intentional for policy purposes | Dispute over whether the act was intentional is resolved by conviction | Yes; policy excludes coverage based on Bell’s willful killing |
Key Cases Cited
- Gollott v. State, 646 So.2d 1297 (Miss. 1994) (conviction collaterally estops civil action on same facts)
- Jordan v. McKenna, 573 So.2d 1371 (Miss. 1990) (privity can bind nonparties to prior judgment)
- Allard, 611 So.2d 966 (Miss. 1992) (distinction on 'accident' in insurance context; not controlling here)
- Moulton, 464 So.2d 507 (Miss. 1985) (no automatic exclusion for intentional acts; evaluates conduct)
- Omnibank, 812 So.2d 196 (Miss. 2002) (adopts Moulton reasoning; focus on insured's conduct)
- Neal v. State, 15 So.3d 388 (Miss. 2009) (heat-of-passion concept in Mississippi)
- Hobson v. State, 730 So.2d 20 (Miss. 1998) (definitions surrounding heat-of-passion)