336 So.3d 1079
Miss.2022Background
- Powell owned a pickup and a trailer on which he erected scaffolding to install trusses; Craft was working on the scaffolding assisting installation.
- Powell towed the trailer between truss positions; at each stop he would turn off the truck and Craft/another worker remained on the scaffold to install trusses.
- While dismounting for lunch with the truck parked and engine off, a coworker jumped onto the trailer, causing it to rock; Craft fell and suffered serious facial injuries.
- Farm Bureau (insurer) denied coverage and sued for a declaratory judgment that its policy did not cover the incident under Part A (liability) or Part B (medical payments).
- The trial court denied Farm Bureau’s summary-judgment motion; the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, holding the injury arose out of the ownership/use of a covered auto and that “auto accident” was ambiguous and must be construed for the insured.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injury was an "auto accident" triggering liability coverage | "Auto accident" is ambiguous and should be read broadly to include accidents arising out of ownership/maintenance/use (including loading/unloading) | "Auto accident" requires a vehicle collision or active use as a means of transportation; here vehicles were stationary and injury unrelated to vehicular operation | Court: Ambiguous term construed for insured; injury arose out of ownership/use (including loading/unloading); coverage applies |
| Whether medical-payments coverage applies to Craft | Medical payments cover injuries "caused by an auto accident" and Craft was occupying a covered auto/trailer when injured | Same defense as above—no "auto accident," so no medical-payments obligation | Court: Same reasoning as liability—medical payments may apply because the injury was caused by an auto accident under the policy |
| Whether court should adopt insurer’s narrow definition (import Bryant/Ryals) | Reject narrow definitions; policy language (and precedent from other jurisdictions) supports a broader reading | Urges court to adopt definition requiring collision or vehicle used as transportation; ask court to effectively redefine the policy term | Court: Declines to rewrite policy or import insurer’s narrow definition; applies Mississippi rule to interpret ambiguous policy language in favor of insured |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. Allstate Ins. Co., 790 F. Supp. 676 (S.D. Miss. 1991) (denied coverage where vehicle merely served as situs of an intentional shooting)
- Alfa Ins. Corp. v. Ryals, 918 So. 2d 1260 (Miss. 2005) (uninsured-motorist coverage did not apply where vehicle was not involved in causal chain for death)
- National Merch. Co. v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n, 400 So. 2d 526 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981) ("auto accident" construed to include accidents arising out of use of vehicle)
- N. Star Mut. Ins. Co. v. Peterson, 749 N.W.2d 528 (S.D. 2008) (broad reading: "auto accident" arises out of ownership, maintenance, or use)
- Hawkeye Sec. Ins. Co. v. Gilbert, 866 P.2d 976 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994) ("auto accident" construed broadly to include incidents tied to vehicle use)
- J & W Foods Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 723 So. 2d 550 (Miss. 1998) (policy language must be read as a whole and ambiguities construed for insured)