Lyons v. Direct General Insurance Co. of Mississippi
138 So. 3d 930
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Lyons seeks declaratory judgment against Direct General on whether a policy exclusion can defeat Mississippi's mandatory liability coverage.
- Monroe County Circuit Court granted Direct summary judgment finding the named-driver exclusion enforceable.
- Lyons' injury arose from Holliday, who was driving Lang's car with her permission and insured by Direct.
- Lang's policy excluded Holliday from coverage; Direct declined to defend the Holliday judgment.
- The issue is whether the statute mandating minimum coverage defeats a named-driver exclusion for third-party injuries arising from permissive use.
- Mississippi Code § 63-15-43(2)(b) and related provisions govern omnibus/minimum coverage; exclusions may not defeat statutory minimums.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a named-driver exclusion defeat mandatory coverage for permissive drivers | Lyons: exclusion conflicts with statute and cannot defeat minimum coverage | Direct: exclusion valid; statute silent on named-driver exclusions | Exclusion invalid to defeat statutory minimums; coverage must apply to permissive drivers up to minimums |
| Does the omnibus clause extend to permissive drivers under the statute | Lyons: statute requires coverage for permissive users | Direct: omnibus clause not overridden by statute | Statute incorporated; omnibus clause provides coverage for permissive drivers up to minimums |
| Relation of Hasselle to present exclusion issue | Lyons: Hasselle not controlling where context differs | Direct: Hasselle supports exclusion | Hasselle distinguished; here exclusions cannot defeat minimum coverage for third parties |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 601 F. Supp. 286 (S.D. Miss. 1984) (statutory provisions incorporated into policy when conflict exists)
- Moore, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Moore, 289 So.2d 909 (Miss. 1974) (omnibus clause extended coverage to permittees through implied consent (pre-Mettetal))
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mettetal, 534 So.2d 189 (Miss. 1988) (overruled Moore’s implied-consent result in part; clarified modern approach)
- Alfa Ins. Corp. v. Hasselle, 74 So.3d 371 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (upheld family-member exclusion in Hasselle context; distinguishable here)
- Miss. Dep’t of Transp. v. Allred, 928 So.2d 152 (Miss. 2006) (legislature’s text governs; best evidence of intent)