James Goss v. Susan Green, 664 F. App'x 560

Background

On March 3, 2008 James Goss was driving an 18-wheel Bigbee Transportation truck (which he drove about 90% of the time and daily on the route) when debris from another car struck his windshield.
Goss sued the Greens (other motorists) and Allstate, claiming Allstate’s underinsured/uninsured motorist (UM) coverage owed him recovery beyond the Greens’ insurance.
Allstate moved for summary judgment based on a policy exclusion barring coverage for injury while in a vehicle “owned by or furnished or available for the regular use of [the insured] … which is not insured for this coverage.”
The district court granted summary judgment for Allstate; initial appeal was dismissed as premature because claims against the Greens remained pending; after settlement and final judgment Goss appealed again.
Tennessee choice-of-law rules were applied, but because the policy was issued and delivered in Mississippi the court applied Mississippi law in interpreting the exclusion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the UM exclusion for vehicles “furnished or available for the regular use” is ambiguous such that coverage could be read to include Goss	Goss argued the exclusion is ambiguous (pointing to added word “available” and agent statements) and therefore should be construed in his favor	Allstate argued the clause is clear and excludes coverage where employer-furnished truck was for the insured’s regular use	The exclusion is unambiguous and applies; no coverage under the Allstate policy
Whether Mississippi law interprets similar exclusions to bar coverage where vehicle is provided for regular use by employer	Goss relied on Jones (arguing facts could support coverage)	Allstate relied on Moore and other Mississippi precedent that equate frequent use and employer-furnished vehicles with “regular use” exclusions	Precedent (Moore, Jones) applied: facts align with Moore, not Jones; exclusion bars coverage
Whether parol evidence of agent statements may create an ambiguity or estop Allstate	Goss introduced an agent’s statement that UM would cover him while driving a truck for work, to create ambiguity	Allstate contended the written policy is unambiguous; parol evidence is inadmissible to create ambiguity	Court refused to consider parol evidence because the policy was unambiguous; Goss did not plead estoppel
Whether workers’ compensation recovery or an excess-insurance clause entitles Goss to UM coverage	Goss suggested other policy provisions and benefits (workers’ comp) support coverage or make Allstate excess	Allstate pointed to excess clause applying only when vehicle is insured under another policy and argued workers’ comp does not trigger UM coverage	Court held neither argument compels coverage; exclusion governs and excess clause is inapplicable absent primary coverage under another policy

Key Cases Cited

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (choice-of-law principle for federal courts in diversity actions)
Moore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 121 So. 2d 125 (Miss. 1960) (frequent employer use constitutes “regular use” for exclusion)
Miss. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 754 So. 2d 1203 (Miss. 2000) (multi-factor inquiry where vehicle not furnished for insured’s particular use; infrequent, unpaid driving favors coverage)
U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. of Miss. v. Martin, 998 So. 2d 956 (Miss. 2008) (ambiguity standard for insurance exclusions; clear policies enforced as written)
Sessoms v. Allstate Ins. Co., 634 So. 2d 516 (Miss. 1993) (clear, unambiguous policies enforced)
Cherry v. Anthony, Gibbs, Sage, 501 So. 2d 416 (Miss. 1987) (parol evidence not considered when contract is unambiguous)
Turner v. Terry, 799 So. 2d 25 (Miss. 2001) (parties bound by clear policy language)
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 493 S.W.2d 465 (Tenn. 1973) (insurance governed by law where policy made and delivered)