925 F.3d 741
5th Cir.2019Background
- In Feb. 2016 a Biloxi firefighter rear‑ended Jessica McGlothin while acting within the course and scope of employment; he did not act in "reckless disregard."
- McGlothin’s vehicle was insured by State Farm, whose UM clause covers sums the insured is "legally entitled to recover" from the owner or driver of an "uninsured motor vehicle."
- Mississippi’s UM Act defines an "uninsured motor vehicle" to include a vehicle "owned or operated by a person protected by immunity under the [MTCA]" (amended 2009).
- Under the MTCA, government employees have immunity for acts within scope of employment (§ 11‑46‑7(2)); police/fire protection exemption bars liability unless employee acted in reckless disregard (§ 11‑46‑9(1)(c)).
- State Farm removed McGlothin’s suit (diversity); the district court held the two UM provisions were repugnant and awarded UM coverage to McGlothin. The Fifth Circuit vacated that portion of the judgment and rendered judgment for State Farm.
Issues
| Issue | McGlothin's Argument | State Farm's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 83‑11‑101(1) (UM coverage limited to sums insured is "legally entitled to recover") is repugnant to § 83‑11‑103(c)(vi) (defines uninsured vehicle to include vehicles operated by persons protected by MTCA immunity) | The 2009 amendment to § 83‑11‑103(c)(vi) creates an exception so vehicles operated by immune persons are treated as uninsured despite lack of legal recourse, thus the provisions conflict | The statute must be read harmoniously: "legally entitled to recover" remains a limiting requirement; § 83‑11‑103(c)(vi) expands definition of "uninsured" but does not negate the legal‑entitlement prerequisite | The provisions are not repugnant; because McGlothin was not legally entitled to recover from the firefighter or entities (no reckless disregard), she is not entitled to UM benefits under § 83‑11‑101(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Medders v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 623 So. 2d 979 (Miss. 1993) ("legally entitled to recover" limits scope of statutorily mandated UM coverage; no coverage where tortfeasor is immune)
- Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Field, 311 U.S. 169 (1940) (federal courts should respect uniform state trial court interpretations when determining state law)
- Roecker v. United States, 379 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1967) (federal courts need not defer to state trial‑court decisions lacking statewide authority)
- Century Sur. Co. v. Seidel, 893 F.3d 328 (5th Cir. 2018) (summary judgment review is de novo)
- Mixon v. Miss. Dep’t of Transp., 183 So. 3d 90 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (governmental entity not immune where employee’s conduct did not fall within MTCA exceptions)