Porter v. Grand Casino of Mississippi, Inc.-Biloxi
181 So. 3d 980
Miss.2016Background
- Cherri Porter’s beachfront home in Biloxi was destroyed during Hurricane Katrina after a casino barge (owned by Grand Casino) broke free and allided with her house.
- Porter submitted an all-risk claim to State Farm; the policy expressly excluded losses that "would not have occurred in the absence of" specified excluded events including water damage (flood, storm surge) and windstorm.
- State Farm denied coverage; Porter sued State Farm (bad-faith denial and negligence), the insurance agent Max Mullins (negligent procurement), and Grand Casino (negligent mooring). Summary judgment was granted for all defendants; Porter appealed and sought certiorari to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
- The Court stayed the appeal during Grand Casino’s bankruptcy but later lifted the stay for the appeal.
- The Supreme Court reviewed summary judgment de novo and considered (1) whether the policy unambiguously excluded Porter’s loss and (2) whether Porter created a genuine dispute that Grand Casino breached its mooring duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the all-risk policy cover loss from the barge impact? | Porter: loss was caused by the barge impact (not "water damage") and vehicle-impact coverage should apply. | State Farm: policy excludes losses that would not have occurred but for water damage and also excludes windstorm; ACC clause bars coverage when excluded events contribute. | Held: Policy unambiguously excludes loss that would not have occurred absent water; no coverage. |
| Does an anticoncurrent-cause (ACC) clause create ambiguity requiring a jury to apportion wind vs. water causes? | Porter: ACC and vehicle-impact language create ambiguity; jury should decide. | State Farm: ACC and the explicit "would not have occurred in absence of water" language apply because the barge movement depended on storm surge. | Held: No genuine ambiguity; ACC and exclusion operate to bar coverage where waterborne debris (barge) caused the loss. |
| Is the claim against insurance agent Mullins viable? | Porter: Mullins negligently issued a substandard policy. | Mullins: no contrary representations; summary judgment appropriate. | Held: Porter did not raise or brief the issue on certiorari; claim abandoned and summary judgment affirmed. |
| Did Grand Casino breach its duty by inadequately mooring the barge (negligence/foreseeability)? | Porter: Grand Casino failed to perform inspections or submit a heavy-storm mooring plan; storm surge foreseeable given prior storms; jury question exists. | Grand Casino: experts show moorings exceeded licensing regs and were designed for ~17-foot surges; Katrina’s surge unforeseeable and beyond design. | Held: Porter failed to create a battle of experts or show causation from the alleged deficiencies; summary judgment for Grand Casino affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corban v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 20 So.3d 601 (Miss. 2009) (distinguishes sequential wind vs. flood losses and recognizes jury role in apportioning concurrent causes)
- Eli Invs., LLC v. Silver Slipper Casino Venture, LLC, 118 So.3d 151 (Miss. 2013) (summary judgment reversed where competing expert affidavits created genuine dispute about foreseeability and adequate mooring)
- Bay Point High and Dry, LLC v. New Palace Casino, LLC, 46 So.3d 821 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (summary judgment affirmed where casino produced evidence that moorings met/exceeded standards and Katrina surge was unforeseeable)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Martin, 998 So.2d 956 (Miss. 2008) (policy language that is clear and unambiguous must be enforced)
- Robichaux v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 81 So.3d 1030 (Miss. 2011) (summary judgment improper where factual disputes remained about whether wind caused damage before storm surge)