Porter v. Grand Casino of Mississippi, Inc.-Biloxi
138 So. 3d 952
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- Porter’s beachfront Biloxi home was destroyed during Hurricane Katrina when a casino barge allided with her house after breaking loose from its moorings.
- Porter sued her homeowner insurer (State Farm) for bad-faith denial of coverage, the insurance agent (Mullins) for negligent procurement of insurance, and Grand Casino for negligence in designing/maintaining the barge’s mooring system.
- State Farm’s all-risk policy expressly excluded loss caused by water and loss that "would not have occurred in the absence of" water (including storm surge/flood). State Farm denied coverage based on that exclusion.
- At summary judgment, State Farm and Mullins prevailed in 2009; Grand Casino later won summary judgment in 2012. Porter appealed; the appeals were consolidated and reviewed de novo.
- The court found (1) the barge’s damage was a concurrent cause with excluded storm surge so the water exclusion applied; (2) Porter presented no evidence she asked Mullins for additional coverage; and (3) Porter’s expert did not create a triable issue that Grand Casino breached its duty to take reasonable measures against foreseeable hurricane risks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coverage / bad-faith denial (State Farm) | The "true cause" was the barge alliding with the house, an insured event under an all-risk policy. | The loss would not have occurred but for storm surge/water (an excluded cause); exclusion bars coverage. | Held for State Farm: storm surge and barge were indivisible concurrent causes; water exclusion applied; no coverage, so bad-faith claim fails. |
| Negligent procurement of insurance (Mullins) | Agent failed to procure coverage that would have covered the barge damage. | Mullins maintained existing policy and Plaintiff never requested additional/ different coverage; insured has duty to read policy. | Held for Mullins: Porter offered no evidence she requested different coverage; claim fails. |
| Negligence re: mooring design/maintenance (Grand Casino) | Casino failed to take reasonable/foreseeable measures; expert affidavit creates triable issue like Eli Investments. | Casino showed mooring designed to exceed regulatory standard and to withstand historic storms; Katrina surge exceeded foreseeable design limits; Porter’s expert did not inspect mooring or opine breach. | Held for Grand Casino: Porter failed to raise a jury issue on breach; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bay Point High & Dry, L.L.C. v. New Palace Casino, L.L.C., 46 So.3d 821 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (affirming summary judgment where plaintiff failed to show breach of duty by casino barge operator)
- Eli Invs., LLC v. Silver Slipper Casino Venture, LLC, 118 So.3d 151 (Miss. 2013) (distinguishing fact issues where competing expert affidavits create jury question on foreseeable risk and breach)
- Corban v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 20 So.3d 601 (Miss. 2009) (concurrent causes doctrine; excluded peril can render related concurrent causes unavailing)
- Mladineo v. Schmidt, 52 So.3d 1154 (Miss. 2010) (insured’s duty-to-read; agent not obligated to advise insured of coverage needs)
- Robichaux v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins., 81 So.3d 1030 (Miss. 2011) (discussion of all-risk vs. named-perils coverage)