Safeway Insurance Company v. Tiffany Dukes, 185 So. 3d 977

Safeway issued a motor-vehicle policy to Dukes; Hudson, not listed as a regular driver, was involved in an accident while driving Dukes’s car and injuring Piggs.
Dukes's application warranted that all regular, frequent drivers were listed; she stated there were no other regular drivers.
Dukes later indicated Hudson was a regular driver on a claim form; Safeway defended under a reservation of rights and filed declaratory-judgment actions.
Trial court granted partial summary judgment to Safeway, ruling Dukes’s false warranty and misrepresentation voided the policy above the minimum $25,000 coverage, but found Lyons compelled minimal coverage.
The court denied reconsideration; Safeway sought interlocutory review, which the Supreme Court granted.
The Mississippi Supreme Court held Lyons does not control because the policy was voidable due to misrepresentation, and the policy is void ab initio rather than just an exclusion issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lyons controls or the policy is voidable ab initio	Dukes and Safeway: Lyons misapplied; Jones-Smith governs voidable policy.	Safeway: Lyons cannot control; policy void ab initio for fraud/misrepresentation.	Policy voidable; Lyons inapplicable; summary judgment for Safeway reversed and rendered in its favor.
Whether Dukes’s and Hudson’s noncooperation affects coverage	Noncooperation precludes coverage under the policy.	Noncooperation is a separate issue not controlling if policy is voidable.	Not reached; dispositive issue is voidability due to misrepresentation.

Lyons v. Direct General, 138 So. 3d 887 (Miss. 2014) (named-driver exclusions; minimum coverage implications)
Jones-Smith v. Safeway Insurance Co., 174 So. 3d 240 (Miss. 2015) (policy voidability; distinction from Lyons)
XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Level Global Investors, L.P., 874 F. Supp. 2d 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (distinction between policy rescission and exclusions)