Home/Fifth Circuit/State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Jerry Daughdrill and Helen B. Daughdrill

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Jerry Daughdrill and Helen B. Daughdrill

702 F.2d 70, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 29113
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 4, 1983·No. 82-4256·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Helen and Jerry Daughdrill had two automobile policies of insurance issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company insuring their 1979 Aspen automobile. Under the Uninsured Motorist Endorsement of the first policy, the insureds were afforded bodily injury coverage in an amount not to exceed $25,000 per person, or $50,000 per accident, and property damage coverage in an amount not to exceed $5,000 per accident. The Uninsured Motorist Endorsement stated that State Farm would “pay damages for bodily injury and property damage an insured is legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle.” Section III(B) (emphasis in text). A copy of the policy is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. While both policies would aggregate, or “stack,” the inclusion of the other policy here is not necessary for a resolution of the issue of coverage.

On February 14,1981, in Pascagoula, Mississippi, while driving the vehicle covered by the insurance policies, Helen B. Daughd-rill was struck from the rear by an automobile owned and operated by an uninsured motorist, Audie Hacker. As a result of this accident, she suffered personal injuries as well as property damage to her vehicle.

Subsequent investigation revealed that Audie Hacker (1) was legally intoxicated at the time of the accident and (2) was operating his vehicle without a valid drivers license due to a prior conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol.

After this accident, the Daughdrills demanded from State Farm both actual and punitive damages under the Uninsured Motorist Endorsement. State Farm offered to pay $2,000 as actual damages conditional on receiving a full release. That offer was refused by the Daughdrills. State Farm then filed its declaratory judgment action seeking a determination whether either the Uninsured Motorist Act or the subject policy required payment of punitive damages.

*71 Contending that there was no genuine issue of material fact, State Farm filed its motion for summary judgment. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, the Honorable Dan M. Russell presiding, overruled State Farm’s motion for summary judgment, holding that punitive damages were included as recoverable damages under the Mississippi Uninsured Motorist Act. He then dismissed the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment action sua sponte as the Court had answered the question to be determined by the Complaint.

From this determination, State Farm filed its notice of appeal. We found that “this diversity case presents important issues of Mississippi state law,” and that “[bjecause the question is significant, it should be certified to the Mississippi Supreme Court, pursuant to Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 46.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Daughdrill, 695 F.2d 141, 142-43 (5th Cir. 1983). 1

CERTIFICATE FROM

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI,

PURSUANT TO RULE 46, MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT RULES

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICES THEREOF

I. STYLE OF THE CASE

The style of the case in which this certificate is made is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus Jerry Daughdrill and Helen B. Daughdrill, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 82-4256, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division.

II. QUESTIONS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

It appears to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that the above-styled diversity case in this Court involves questions or propositions of law particularly appropriate for resolution by the Supreme Court of Mississippi. There appears to be no precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Mississippi that is controlling.

Under these circumstances, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit hereby certifies the following questions of law to the Supreme Court of Mississippi for instructions based upon the facts recited, pursuant to Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 46:

A. Does the Unisured Motorist Act [Miss.Code Ann. §§ 83-11-101 et seq. (Supp.1982)] require that the uninsured motorist coverage provision of an automobile liability policy cover punitive damages that the insured would be legally entitled to collect from the uninsured motorist?

B. Does the Uninsured Motorist Endorsement of the subject policy require that the insurer pay any punitive damages assessed against the uninsured motorist, not to exceed the aggregated policy limitations of coverage?

QUESTIONS CERTIFIED.

*72 Exhibit B

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

HELEN B. DAU6HDRILL PLAINTIFF

VERSUS NO. 11,893

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE DEFENDANTS

INSURANCE COMPANY, JOHN K0RNE6AY, AUDIE. HACKER, CARL NULTA, AND TY GIBBS

ORDER SUSTAINING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On this day, this cause came on for hearing on the Motion of the Plaintiff for a partial summary judgment as to the Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, on the issue as to whether or not the said Defendant would be liable under uninsured motorists section under the two policies of insurance in question for punitive damages, if any, that may be assessed by the jury against the uninsured motorist, Audie Hacker, one of the Defendants herein, and the court having heard and considered the evidence of State Farm’s policies and claims manual dealing with uninsured motorist and liability coverages and procedures on file, and considered said Motion, together with argument of counsel, does find that the said Motion should be sustained, and the court finds that the Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, will be liable under uninsured motorist section under the two policies in question for punitive damages, if any, that may be assessed by a jury against the uninsured motorist, Audie Hacker, up to the limits of said coverage for uninsured motorist benefits.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the said Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be, and the same is hereby, sustained upon the issue as set forth hereinabove.

SO ORDERED and ADJUDGED on this the 27th day of January, 1983.

/s/Robert T. Mills CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

/s/ C.R. McRAE C.R. McRAE Attorney for Plaintiff BRYAN, NELSON, ALLEN,

SCHROEDER & BACKSTROM Attorneys for Defendant,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Jerry Daughdrill and Helen B. Daughdrill, 702 F.2d 70, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 29113 (5th Cir. 1983).

702 F.2d 70 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Jerry Daughdrill and Helen B. Daughdrill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Jerry Daughdrill and Helen B. Daughdrill
769 F.2d 1070 (Fifth Circuit, 1985)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Daughdrill
474 So. 2d 1048 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1985)
Allstate Insurance v. Randall
708 F.2d 197 (Fifth Circuit, 1983)
Allstate Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Third Party Cross-Appellee v. Barbara Randall, Individually and by and Through Her Father and Next Friend, Otis C. Randall, and Otis C. Randall, Individually, Cross-Appellants v. Carl Warren Randall, Third Party
708 F.2d 197 (Third Circuit, 1983)