Case Title: Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Larr

Citation: 567 So. 2d 239

Docket Number: 89-FC-01124

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1990-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
567 So. 2d 239 (1990) The MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Elizabeth M. LARR, Individually and as Administratrix C.T.A. of the Estate of David B. Larr, Jr., Deceased. No. 89-FC-01124. Supreme Court of Mississippi. September 19, 1990. John E. Hughes, III, Roy H. Liddell, Wells Wells Marble & Hurst, Jackson, for appellant. Landman Teller, Landman Teller, Jr., Teller Martin Chaney Hassell & Williford, Vicksburg, for appellee. *240 Before HAWKINS, P.J., and ANDERSON and PITTMAN, JJ. PITTMAN, Justice, for the Court: The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, has certified the following questions to this Court pursuant to Miss.S.Ct.R. 20: The parties in this cause have stipulated to the following statement of facts: Larr v. Minnesota Mutual Life Ins. Co., 884 F.2d 892, 893 (5th Cir.1989). Mrs. Larr's complaint against Minnesota Mutual was originally filed in Warren County Circuit Court. The cause was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. After completion of discovery, Minnesota Mutual moved for summary judgment on July 14, 1988. Mrs. Larr moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of actual or contract damages on the following day. On September 30, 1988, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order. It found that Minnesota *241 Mutual, because it had accepted premium payments for two months after Mr. Larr reached age seventy, had waived the age termination clause in the policy and was estopped from asserting it as a defense, and was liable to Mrs. Larr for the amount of the policy. It further found in favor of Minnesota Mutual on the issues of punitive damages and actual damages in tort. Minnesota Mutual appealed, and Mrs. Larr cross-appealed, to the Fifth Circuit. Boult v. Maryland Casualty Co. involved a combination sickness and accident insurance policy, issued to Richard W. Boult in 1916. The policy provided that "[t]he insurance under this policy shall not cover any person under the age of 18 years nor over the age of 60 years." Despite this Maryland Casualty continued to accept premiums from Boult for four years after he reached the age of 60. In 1938, when he was 64, Boult was involved in an accident and died soon afterward. Boult's estate filed a claim against Maryland Casualty. The principal controversy in the case was whether Boult had died from a result of the accident or of other causes. As to the question of waiver, the Fifth Circuit stated: Boult, 111 F.2d at 260. Boult has not been cited as authority by any court in any case since it was decided. The Fifth Circuit asks specifically if Boult has been overruled by Employers Fire Insurance Co. v. Speed and its progeny. In Speed, an insurance agent insured certain buildings. The insurance, as written, contained a clause to the effect that the property in question would not be covered if there was construction going on at the building and the building was not under roof and the outside windows and doors were not in place. The agent agreed to write coverage so that the building would be insured during the construction, but never did. The building was subsequently damaged during a windstorm. Speed, 242 Miss. at 343-344, 133 So. 2d at 628. As to whether the coverage of the policy could be extended by waiver or estoppel, this Court stated: Speed, 242 Miss. at 346, 133 So. 2d at 629. This rule concerning waiver and estoppel has been reaffirmed several times since Speed. See, e.g., Travelers Fire Insurance Co. v. Bank of New Albany, 244 Miss. 788, 146 So. 2d 351 (1962); Frank Gardner Hardware & Supply Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 245 Miss. 320, 148 So. 2d 190 (1963); Mississippi Hospital & Medical Service v. Lumpkin, 229 So. 2d 573 (Miss. 1969); Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ellis, *242 234 So. 2d 925 (Miss. 1970); Pongetti v. First Continental Life & Accident Co., 688 F. Supp. 245 (N.D.Miss. 1988). We find that Boult has not been overruled by subsequent Mississippi cases. Boult involves a set of facts which distinguishes it from Speed and its progeny. While Boult may not be determinative of the controversy before the Fifth Circuit, it is still viable precedent for the notion that under certain circumstances, an insurance company may waive an age termination provision in a policy by continuing to accept premiums past the time specified in the termination provision. This is especially true if the insurer had knowledge of the insured's age while continuing to accept premiums. 44 AM.JUR.2d Insurance § 1649 (1982). Whether there was such knowledge on the part of Minnesota Mutual, or whether Minnesota Mutual waived any of its contract rights in dealing with the Larrs is beyond the scope of the certified question, and we make no comment on these points. The first question certified to us for determination is answered in the negative, and the second question is answered in the affirmative, for the reasons stated. CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and BLASS, JJ., concur.