Porter v. Shelter General InsurancePorter v. Shelter General Insurance
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Thе Court has before it a joint Motion for Judgment on stipulated facts. There remains for determination a single question of Mississippi law, that is, whether an autоmobile liability insurance policy may pro *152 vide for a reduction of supplemental uninsured motorist benefits because of workers’ compеnsation received by the beneficiary. Supplemental uninsured motorist benefits are those which are in excess of the minimum required by statute. Under Mississipрi law, parties are free to contract for supplemental benefits as they see fit. The policy provision is therefore enforcеable with regard to those benefits, and judgment will be entered for Defendant Shelter General Insurance Company.
It is stipulated that Plaintiff Sammy Porter is a beneficiary under the Shelter General policy at issue, that the policy provides $25,000.00 in uninsured motorist benefits, and that Porter is entitled to receive thе full amount of those benefits unless Shelter General may reduce Porter’s benefits by the amount he has received in workers’ compensation.
The Shelter General policy contains a provision which purports to allow the insurer to reduce all of the uninsured motorist benefits for any amounts received as workers’ compensation:
Any amount payable under the terms of [the uninsured motorist insurance] because of bodily injury ... shall be reducеd by ... the amount paid and the present value of all amounts payable on account of such bodily injury under any workmen’s compensation law, disаbility benefits law or any similar law.
Shelter General has conceded, however, that it may not reduce the uninsured motorist benefits below the $10,000.00 minimum required by statutе. That amount has already been paid to Porter.
Shelter General has refused to pay Porter’s claim for the remaining $15,000.00 available under the uninsured motorist provision, asserting that the workers’ compensation set-off is enforceable against the remaining amount. Porter received $25,-365.00 in workers’ compensation. If the set-off is enforceable, Porter is not entitled to additional payments from Shelter General.
The uninsured motorist law of Mississippi requires automobile liability insurance policies to provide uninsured motorist insurance with specified minimum limits and prohibits uninsured motorist coveragе in excess of the liability coverage; however, it leaves the parties free to contract for uninsured motorist coverage betweеn those extremes:
No automobile liability insurance policy ... shall be issued ... unless it contains [uninsured motorist insurance with] limits which shall be no less than those set forth in the Mississippi Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law [Miss. Code Ann. § 63-15-11] ...; however, at the option of the insured, the uninsured motorist limits may be increased to limits not to exceed those' provided in the policy of bodily injury liability insurance of the insured or such lesser limits as the insured elects to carry over the minimum requirement sеt forth in this section.
Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-101 (Supp.1986). The Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law requires limits of $10,000.00 for bodily injury to one person. Miss. Code Ann. § 63-15-11 (Supp.1986).
Although the Mississippi Supreme Court has nevеr considered the specific issue of workers’ compensation, it has consistently refused to allow any reduction of uninsured motorist coverаge below the minimum required by statute.
Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.,
Although minimum uninsured motorist benefits are required, the parties are free to contract for supplemental benefits so long as the uninsured motorist benefits do not exceed the liability benefits. Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-101 (Supp.1986). Section 83-11-111 of the Code prоvides that any coverage in excess of the coverage required by that article “shall not be subject to the provisions of this article” except as provided. The Mississippi Supreme Court has interpreted that provision as follows:
It follows that the parties to this suit were free to contract as to uninsured motorist coverage in any respect so long as the required coverage is not cut down by the policy provisions, [citation omitted] If State Farm and Insured could contract free of statutory restraint as to excess coverage, they could also contract to limit the coverage to that required by statute.
Talbot,
... we find that the policy provision permitting payments ... to be offset by amounts paid in lieu of first party benefits under the Workers’ Cоmpensation Law is violative of the Insurance Law. Such a violation, however, cannot be said to exist with respect to the supplementаl uninsured motorist cover age____ The parties are free to agree to whatever terms or conditions they see fit with respect to such supрlemental coverage [citations omitted]. Put somewhat differently, while the Legislature has guaranteed that a qualified person injured by an uninsured motоrist endorsement shall have at least $10,000.00 worth of coverage available to compensate him for pain and suffering (non-economic lоss), that person's entitlement to any greater benefits will depend solely on the terms of the insurance contract.
Fox v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company,
Under Mississippi law, the existing law becomes part of a contract:
An equally well-settled rule, recognized by Mississippi, is that courts will imply that the laws in force when a contract was mаde were intended by the parties to be a part of the contract as much as if they had been expressly incorporated therein.
Mid-Continent Telephone Corp. v. Home Telephone Co.,
The Court notes that the Shelter General policy as written misrеpresents the coverage to which policyholders are entitled. The policy states that all of the uninsured motorist benefits are subject to thе workers’ compensation set-off, even though minimum coverage is required by law. That provision could mislead policy holders and their lawyers into abandoning valuable claims and should not remain in the policy.
Policing of policy provisions, however, is not a matter for this Court. In this case, Porter’s attorneys were not misled and have compelled Shelter General to pay the amount required by statute. Porter has dropped his claim for punitive damages. The only question remaining is whether Porter is entitled to supplementary benefits. Since the workers’ compensation set-off is enforсeable with regard to those benefits, Porter is entitled to no further recovery from Shelter General and the Complaint should be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that judgment be entered for Shelter General. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this opinion.