Strange ex rel. Strange v. Krebs

689 F.2d 1216, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24494
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 28, 1982
DocketNo. 80-3594
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 689 F.2d 1216 (Strange ex rel. Strange v. Krebs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Strange ex rel. Strange v. Krebs, 689 F.2d 1216, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24494 (5th Cir. 1982).

Opinion

JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal by appellant-garnishee, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company (USF&G), from the granting of a Writ of Garnishment against it. The issue presented is whether forbearance to cancel an insurance policy on its renewal date constitutes valid consideration for a student exclusion endorsement to the policy under Mississippi law. Because we found no clear controlling precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, we certified1 the case to the Mississippi Supreme Court.2 Strange v. Krebs, 658 F.2d 268 (5th Cir. 1981).

The Supreme Court of Mississippi has now answered these questions in the negative. Krebs v. Strange, 419 So.2d 178 (Miss. 1982).

In answering the questions, the Supreme Court of Mississippi agreed that USF&G was bound to provide coverage, pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy between itself and McLeod, until the end of the policy period on September 7,1973, and that forbearance of an automatic termination of the policy at the end of the initial policy period did not constitute consideration for the modification to the policy.

When the period of an insurance policy expires, then in the absence of specific language to the contrary, the contract between the parties terminates. When termination of the contract occurs, the insurance company has nothing to cancel and there is no legal right or privilege as to that contract which the insurance company may forbear and for which such forbearance may serve as consideration for a modification.
In actuality, the insurance company was making a promise not to offer to renew the insurance contract upon the termination of the present policy. This promise existed as a nudum pactum and hence was unenforceable and could not constitute consideration. We must, therefore, conclude that the ‘student exclusion’ endorsement signed by McLeod in December, 1972 was void for lack of consideration.

Krebs v. Strange, 419 So.2d at 183.

Accordingly, with authoritative guidance from the only court which can speak with almost limitless authority on a matter which touches on important social interests in Mississippi, we are able positively to hold that the student exclusion endorsement was void for lack of consideration and, with this imprimatur, that the District Court was correct.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Strange v. Krebs
689 F.2d 1216 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
689 F.2d 1216, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strange-ex-rel-strange-v-krebs-ca5-1982.