Honeycutt v. Coleman
120 So. 3d 358
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Honeycutt injured in a collision with a state trooper; suit against trooper and two insurers, Atlanta Casualty and American Premier.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants; Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Charles challenged only the summary judgment for American Premier regarding UM coverage.
- Mississippi recognizes a right to UM coverage and requires a knowing, written waiver.
- Berry required agents to explain UM coverage and the option to purchase more; Owens partially overruled Berry, limiting the duty to explain to waiver context.
- Court finds material fact questions regarding whether the agent explained UM coverage and whether the waiver was knowing and intelligent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent duty to explain UM coverage to insured | Honeycutt argues agent failed to explain UM coverage | American Premier asserts waiver was knowingly signed | Issue reversed; agent has duty to explain UM coverage prior to waiver. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on UM waiver issue | There is a genuine issue of material fact about knowing waiver | Waiver document supports knowing waiver | Issue resolved for remand; summary judgment improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 669 So.2d 56 (Miss. 1996) (agent must explain UM and obtain written waiver for waiver to be knowing)
- Owens v. Miss. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 910 So.2d 1065 (Miss. 2005) (overruled Berry on extra UM coverage; maintains knowing waiver requirement)
- Alley v. N. Ins. Co., 926 So.2d 906 (Miss. 2006) (acknowledges Owens effect on Berry)
- Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Payne, 603 So.2d 343 (Miss. 1992) (waiver of UM must be knowing and intelligent)
- Reid v. Miss. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 63 So.3d 1238 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (discusses Owens interpretation of Berry)