Sylvia F. Minor v. United Services Automobile Association
247 So. 3d 1266
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- Paul and Sylvia Minor's home was destroyed in Hurricane Katrina (Aug. 29, 2005); they held a USAA homeowners replacement-cost policy that excluded flood/storm-surge and contained a 2% named-storm deductible.
- Minors reported the claim in Jan. 2006; USAA inspected, retained PT&C (engineer), paid amounts it attributed to wind damage, and denied/withheld amounts it attributed to storm surge.
- Minors sued (Aug. 2008) for policy benefits and sought punitive/extracontractual damages for alleged bad-faith claims handling; USAA moved for partial summary judgment on extra-contractual and punitive claims which the trial court granted pre-trial.
- Jury trial proceeded on coverage/amount issues; jury awarded $1,547,293.37 (Sept. 20, 2013); post-trial motions denied; Minors appealed.
- On appeal the court reviewed: (1) whether granting partial summary judgment on punitive/extracontractual claims was proper, (2) whether Jury Instruction D-29b improperly limited recovery, and (3) whether the court should have entered judgment for policy limits or granted additur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on punitive/extracontractual damages was proper | Minors: genuine disputes existed (USAA had pre-loss underwriting materials and engineer/adjuster notes showing wind damage and USAA delayed/denied improperly) | USAA: had an "arguable"/legitimate basis (engineer reports, inspections, requests for information) so bad-faith claims fail as a matter of law | Reversed: genuine issues of material fact existed; summary judgment on extra-contractual/punitive claims was reversible error and those claims may proceed to trial |
| Whether Jury Instruction D-29b incorrectly capped recovery (depreciation/deductible) | Minors: D-29b preempted jury and improperly deducted recoverable depreciation and deductible, preventing award of policy limits for total loss | USAA: instruction reflected unambiguous policy terms (actual cash value until repair/replacement; 2% deductible) | Affirmed: instruction consistent with policy language and supported by evidence; no error in giving D-29b |
| Whether court should have entered judgment for policy limits or granted additur/JNOV | Minors: verdict was legally insufficient; sought judgment for policy limits and on appeal requested additur for depreciation amounts | USAA: policy limits/recoverable depreciation not payable absent completed repair/replacement; JNOV/additur not supported | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported jury verdict; policy precludes paying depreciation absent repair; additur request procedurally barred and meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Karpinsky v. American Nat. Ins. Co., 109 So.3d 84 (Miss. 2013) (summary-judgment standard; de novo review)
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield, Inc. v. Campbell, 466 So.2d 833 (Miss. 1984) (definition of "arguable reason" for insurer conduct)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Simpson, 477 So.2d 242 (Miss. 1985) (distinguishing ordinary negligence from heightened torts warranting extracontractual relief)
- Corban v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 20 So.3d 601 (Miss. 2009) ("storm surge" falls within water-damage/flood exclusion)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Lisanby, 47 So.3d 1172 (Miss. 2010) (insurer may have an arguable basis where it relied on engineer and adjuster reports; plaintiffs bear heavy burden to show lack of arguable basis)