I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 5 - CA- 0 2 0 8 2 - S CT C L Y D E A N GL IN
v. GUL F G UA RA NT Y L I FE I NS URAN CE COM

P AN Y
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 14/ 2005 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. P AUL S
. F UND ERB URK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LE E COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : DANA G AI L DE AT ON CH RI S H. DE AT ON GR ANT M . F OX S AR A M AR T I N F OX ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: THO M AS W I CK ER NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - I NSURANCE D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 04/ 19/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E SM I T H , C . J. , C A R L SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. I n conj unct i on w i th tw o s epar at e l oans , C l yde A ngl i n pur chas ed cr edi t l i f e i ns ur ance
co v era g e a n d m o n thly d isab il ity insu ran ce co v e ra g e u n d erw ri tt en b y G u lf G u ara n ty L if

e In su ra n c e C o m p a n y (“ G u lf G u a ra n ty ” ). T h e ce rtifica tes o f in su ra n c e w e re iss u e d to A n g lin
w i thouta r eques tt o ans w erany hea l th ques t i ons pr epr i nt ed on the appl i cat i on orotherw i s e. T he ce r t i f

i cat es of i ns ur ance r es erved the r i ghtf orG ul f G uar anty t o decl i ne c o v e ra g e w ith in ni nety days of

e ach l oan. B eca us e of

i nf or m at i on a cqui r ed i n c onj unct i on w i th a thi r d l oan and pur chas e of

cr edi tl i f e and mont hl y di s abi l i ty i ns ur ance c over age, a nd w i thi n ni nety days

### This samece rtif ic at e enc ompa ss es Ce rtif

ic at e Numbe r 1746754 0 , wh ich is th e credit 1 

### li feins urancecove ra ge and Cer ti fi cateNumbe r 1746754 7 , wh ich is the monthlydisab ility ins urancecove ra ge. 2 of the f i r s ttw o pur chas es , G ul f G uar anty decl i ned

A ngl i n’ s m onthl y di s abi l i ty i ns ur ance
cover age ( butonl y on the s econd c ert i f i cat e of i ns ur ance ) , and cance l l ed hi s cre d itli fe i ns ur ance cover age on a l l cert i f i cat es of i ns ur ance , i ncl udi ng the thi r d p oli cy, w hi ch i s not at issue in this ap p ea l. S u b seq u en t t o h is rece ipt o f the c erti fi ca tes o f i n su ran ce , b u t befo re the dec l i nat i on of

one pol i cy and canc el l at i on of thr ee other s , A ngl i n w as di agnos ed w i th an incu rab le, fast -pro g ressing disea se, am y o tr o p h ic l ateral sch lerosis (“A L S ” o r “L o u G eh ri g ’s di s eas e”)
. Pr i ort o hi s death i n M ay 2000, A ngl i n f i l ed s ui tagai ns tG ul f

G uar anty. ¶2
. O n S ept ember 13, 2005, G ul f G uar ant y fi l ed a mot i on f ors umm a ry j ud gment
a ss e rtin g it p ro p e rly “c a n c e lled an d /o r d e c lin e d co v e ra g e w ith in n in e ty (9 0 ) d a y s o f th e d a te of the l oans i n ques t i on . . . . ” I n r es pons e, A ngl i n’ s es t at e ar gued thatG ul f G uar anty had onl y the r i ghtt o decl i ne c o v e ra g e , n o t cance lc o v e ra g e . T h e C irc u it C o u rt o f L e e C o u n ty g ra n ted G u lf G u a ra n ty ’s m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. F ro m th a t ru lin g c o m e s th is a p p e a l. FACTS ¶ 3
. O n Ju ly 3 1 , 1 9 9 8 , A n g lin re fin a n c e d tw o loa n s a n d p u rc h a se d c re d it l ife a n d m o n th ly di s abi l i ty i ns ur ance cover age unde rw r i t t en by G ul f G uar anty. T he ce rt i f

i cat e of i ns ur ance pert ai ni ng t o t he f

i r s tl oan pr ovi ded $15, 051. 72 i n cr edi tl i f e i ns ur ance cover age a nd $418. 11 i n m onthl y di s abil i t y i ns ur ance cover age ( C ert i f i cat e N um ber1746754)
. T he s econd 1
cert i f i cat e of i ns ur ance pr ovi ded $21, 500. 72 i n cr edi tl i f e i ns ur ance cover age a nd $449. 19

### This s am e ce rtif ic at e e ncom

pas se s Ce rtif

ic at e Num

ber 1746755 0 , whichis the cred it 2 

### li feins urancecove ra ge and Certi fi cateNumbe r 1746755 7 , wh ich is th e monthlydisab ility insurance co verag e. Th e comb inedmonth lyd isabilityinsurance co verag e purpo rtedly provi ded t o Anglin via

Cer ti fi cate s Num

ber 1746754 7

and 1746755 7

was $867.30. Note , ho wev er, that eachcertificate of insurance specifica lly states th at “[t]he maximum agg regate Tota l Di sa

bil it y bene fi t payabl e t o any Insured Debtor under thi s and al l ot

her ce rtif ic at es is . . . $3 00 .00 per mo nthfor ag es 51 -65 .” On both a ppli cati ons, Anglin was l is te d a s the“ ins ure d debtor” and Peopl e’ s Bank 3 

### was listedas the “cred itor b eneficiary .” This provi si on was cont ained on thebac k of the c erti fi cateof insuranc e. Notethat 4 

### ea ch c erti fi cateof insuranc e wa s on the samedocume nt as theappl ic ation f or insuranc e. For re as ons une xplaine d in t

he r ec ord, Gulf

Guarant y cl ai ms it di d not rec ei ve thes e a ppli cati ons for ins urance/c erti fi cate s of

ins uranceunti l Septe mbe r 9, 1998. This was cor

roborat ed by Por

te r. 5 

### 3 in m o n th ly d isa b ili ty in s u ra n c e c o v e ra g e (C e rtifica te N u m b e r 1 7 4 6 7 5 5 ) . E a c h c e rtifica te 2 of i ns ur ance cl ear l y and un am bi guous l y s t at es that“[ G ul f G uar anty] agr ees t o i ns ur e the I ns ur ed D ebt or ( s ) [ ] as s peci f i ed i n t hi s C ert i f

i cat e, s ubj ectt o the pr ovi s i ons cont ai ned i n t he 3 G ro u p C re d it I n s u ra n c e p o lic y .” E a c h c e rt if ic a te o f i n s u ra n c e f

u r th e r p ro v id e d th a t “ [i]f [G u lf G u a ra n ty ] fi n d s th e In su re d D e b to r is n o t an in su ra b le ri sk , itre se rv e s th e rig h t to decl i ne the I ns ur ance w ith in 90 days of the D at e o f Loan by m ai l i ng not i ce of decl i nat i on d i r e c t l y t o th e Cr e d i t o rB e n e f i c i a r y a n dr e t u r n i n ga l lp r e mi u ms c o llec ted fo r th is C ert i f i cat e. ” ( E m phas i s added)
. T he depos i t i on t es t i m ony of El l en M ethvi n, vi ce pr es i dent 4 and of f i ce m anage rof G ul f

G uar anty, re veal ed thatagent s such as l oan of f i cerB r i an Por t er
r ece i ve no tr ai ni ng orgui del i nes as t o underw r i t i ng cr i t er i a i n pr oces s i ng appl i cat i ons f or i nsurance. W hil e t he p repr i nted app l i cat i on forinsur ance form co ntai ned h eal th q uest i on s,

5 G ul f G uar anty di d notr equi r e thos e ques t i ons t o be as ked orans w er ed. Fur therm or e, t he part i es a gr ee thatPor t eras ked hi m no heal th ques t i ons . Por t erf urni s hed A ngl i n a copy of

### The m onthly d isabi li ty insuranc e c overageof Ce rtif ic at e Num

ber 1746759 was of 6 

### no valu e. See footnote2 sup ra . 4 the ce r t i f i cat es of i ns ur ance . A ngl i n furtherass ert ed t hatP or t ert ol d hi m as he l ef tthe of f i ce that “you ’r e cov ered. ” P ort er deni ed tel l i ng A ng l i n thathe w as “co vered” o r otherw i se i m pl yi ng thatA ngl i n’ s c over age w as gua r ant eed. B y c ontr as t , Por t erc l ai m ed that he in fo rm e d A n g lin th a t “[b ]ec a u se th e lo a n a m o u n ts w e re o v e r $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 . . . h e c o u ld p ro b a b ly
e x p e c t a . . . h e a lth q u e s tio n n a ir e [f ro m ] G u lf

G u a ra n ty .” ¶ 4
. 

### On August 25, 1998, Anglin borrowe d an additiona l $60,000. 00 for the purpos e of buyin g anexcav ating machin e. An glinpurchas edc re d it life andmonthlydisab ility ins urance . Thece rtif

ic ate of ins urancepertaining to t

he Augus t 25, 1998, l oan pur port ed on its face to p rov ide $ 80 ,01 0.6 4 incredit life i nsurance co verag e and$1 ,66 6.8 9 inmonthly dis abi li ty insuranc e c overage(Ce rtif ic at e Numbe r 1746759). The ce rtif ic at e of ins urance 6 

### stated th at “[Gu lf Gu aranty ] agrees to in sure th e Insured D ebto r(s) as specif ie d inthis Cer ti fi cate , s ubje ct

to t he provis ions cont ained in theGroup Credi t Ins urancepolic y.”For
re as ons une xplaine d in t

he re cord, Gul f Guaranty c laim s i t di d not rec ei ve this ce rtif ic at e of ins uranceunti l Oc tobe r 14, 1998. Af te r r ec eipt, and prior to cancell ing, Methvin t es ti fi ed that Gul f Guaranty reduc ed the c re dit li feins urancecove ra ge to $64, 311.00 “bec aus e i t wa s so mu ch o ver th e maximum allowedfor [A ng lin’s] age . . . .” T his testimo nyis contrary to thepolic y langua ge, which st at ed in a li mi tati on provis ion that for insureds betwe en the a ge of 50-61, “[t ] he a ggre gat e amount of l if e insuranc e . . . under

thi s and al l ot

her [c ] erti fi cate s sha llnot e xce ed”$50,000. 00. Ac cordingly, this cove ra ge whi ch Angl in purcha se d was of

### In deposi ti on te stim ony, Angl in c laim ed hefirs t l earnedth at h e ha d ALS on 7 

### Sept em ber 14, 1998. He f

urther as se rt ed that

when hewas off

er ed and appl ie d for

ins urance from Gulf Guaranty, h e didno t kn owthath e h adA L S. Gulf Guaranty h as not ra is ed misrepresentationor p reexistin g co nd itionas an issu e in th is app eal. Acco rdi n g to An glin ’s dep ositio n testimo ny , he receiv ed a h ealth questio nn aire in 8 

### Sept em ber
. 5 limite d va lue , although theprem ium wa s bas ed on s tate d c overage , sincehea lrea dy h eld
ce rtif ic at es of insuranc e t ota ling in e xce ss of $36, 000.00 of cr edi t l if e insuranc e c overage . ¶ 5 . 

### OnO ctob er 2 0, 1998, both cr edi t l if e insuranc e c overageand month ly disab ility ins urancecove ra ge we recance ll ed on Ce rtif ic at e Numbe r 1746759 and thepre miums wer e re tur ned t o the bank. However, thi s s uit involves only t

he two July 31, 1998, ce rtif ic at es of ins urance . ¶6
. O n Sept ember 14, 1998, A ngl i n w as admi t t ed t o B apt i s tM emori al H os pi t al
c o mp l a i n i n g o f

mu s c l e we a k n e s s . Th e o f f i c e n o t e s o f

Th e Ne u r o l o g y Cl i n i c f r o m th a ts a me day i ndi cat e that“[ A ngl i n] has probab l e d i agnos i s of [ A L S]
. ” B y O ct ober6, 1998, t he

7 outpat i ent r ecor d of

A ngl i n atN or th M i s s i s s i ppi M edi cal C ent erdef i ni t i vel y di agnos ed A n g lin a s s u ff

e ri n g fr o m “ A L S w ith in c re a s in g s h o u ld e r a n d a rm p a in .” ¶7. R egar di ng C ert i f i cat e N um ber1746755 7 , on O ct ober16, 1998, G ul f G uar anty s ent a lett er to P eo p le’s B an k , w ith a c o p y to A n g li n , stat ing tha t “[ w ] e m u st r eg retfull y info rm yo u tha tou rc ompany w ill no tb e abl e to acce ptthe dis abi l i t

y cov er age underthe above
me n t i o n e d c e r t i f

i c a t e f o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s h o wn . I NF OR M AT I ON S UB M I T T E D ON H E A L T H Q U E S T IO N N A IR E .[ ] W e a re e n c lo sin g o u r c h e c k c o v e rin g th e fu ll d isa b ili ty 8 p re m iu m re c e iv e d .” (E m p h a sis a d d e d ). S u b se q u e n tly , o n O c to b e r 2 0 , 1 9 9 8 , G u lf G u a ra n ty
s entthr ee l ett er s t o Peopl e’ s B ank r el at ed t o C ert i f i cat es N um ber1746754 0 , 1746755 0 , and

### Sh e follo ws n o stan dardreference s, medical reg ulatio ns, o r industrygu idelin es in 9 

### makin g und erwritin g d ecision s onacceptab le or unaccep table risk s. Lat er , howe ver , s he i ns i s t ed that“[ t ] her e’ s nota di f f er ence ” betw een dec l i ni ng and 10 canc el l i ng cover age. 

### Spec if ic al ly: 11 

### Q. Can you t el l m e what, if any, re as on there woul d be onele tt er whic h 6 1746759 0 , w i th copi es t o A ngl i n, e ach of w hi ch s t at ed “[ c] r edi t[ i ] ns ur ance f orthi s i ns ur ed has been cance l l ed

as of t he or i gi nal dat e of

the l oan and f

ul l r ef und of al l pr emi um pai d f

or th is c o v e ra g e is b e in g re tu rn e d .” (E m p h a s is a d d e d ). 

### Ther e i s no e vide ncein t he r ec ord that themont hly di sa bil it y ins urancecove ra ge on the f ir st ce rtif ic at e of ins urancewa s de cl ine d
or c anc el le d. ¶ 8
. M e th v i n wa s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r u n d e rwr i t i n g “ a l l o f th e c r e d i t l i f e , d i s a b i l i ty a n d s o me of t he G ul f [ G ua r a nty] t e r m cov e r a ge s . ” She t e s t i f i e d tha tG ul f

G ua r a nty h a s no w r i t t en oper at i ng pr ocedur es on underw r i t i ng the cr edi tl i f e orm onthl y di s abi l i ty i ns ur ance
c o v e ra g e . G u lf G u a ra n ty b a se s its u n d e rw riting d e c isio n s o n h e r p e rso n a l k n o w led g e , sk ill ,

9 and the i nf

or m at i on pr ovi ded i n the appl i cat i on proc es s . A s t o A ngl i n, s he dec i ded t o canc el credi tl i fe i nsurance co verage aft er exam i ning his m edical recor ds. ¶9
. M et hvi n i ni t i a l l y di s t i ngui s hed t he t er m “dec l i ne” f r om “ca ncel , ” s t at i ng t hat

“ [d ]ec lin e d is w h e n w e in fo rm th e in su re d th a t w e c a n n o t ac c e p t h is c o v e ra g e .” S h e c o u ld 10 notexpl ai n w hy the O ct ob e r16 , 19 98 , l e tt e rs t at ed thatm onthl y di s abi l i ty i ns ur ance cover age on C ert i f i cat e N um ber1746755 7w as “not
. . . abl e t o [ be] acc ept [ ed, ] ” w hi l e the O ct ober20, 1998, l ett er s pr ovi ded that t he cre di tl i f e i ns ur ance cover age on Cer t i f i cat es 1746754 0 , 1746755 0 , and 1746759 0 w e re “ c a n c e lled .” F u rth e rm o re , M e th v in te stifie d th a t th e c re d it 11

### st at es thecom pany c annot

ac cept c overageand theothe r l ette rs cance l[ ling] cove ra ge. A. No. Ad ditio nally , An glinmaintain ed th at “[i]n reliance upo n th e issuan ce of th ese 12 

### ce rtif ic at es of insuranc e, [he ] for ewe nt t he opportun ity to obtain alte rnateins urance cov erage.” T her eaf t er , Paul a A ngl i n w as appoi nt ed as admi ni s tr at orof hi s es t at e and by or der 13 o f t h e C h a n c e ry C o u rt o f L e e C o u n ty , M is s is s ip p i w a s “ s u b s titu te d a s . . . P la in tif f.” 

### We refer to b othAn glinandAn glin ’s estate as “An glin .” 7 l i f e i ns ur ance cover age on Cer t i f i cat e N um ber1746754 0 , i n t he am ountof $15, 051. 72, had been r ei ns ur ed by G ul f

G uar anty. ¶ 1 0
. A t th e tim e h e re c e iv e d th e se lette rs, A n g lin tes tified th a t h e “ w a s fix in g to file a c laim on them[ , ] ” buthad notyetf i l ed any cl ai m s . Fol l ow i ng “ca ncel l at i on, ” Por t ert es t i f i ed that P e o p le ’s B a n k “ re c e iv e [d ] th e p re m iu m b a c k a n d c re d it[e d ] th e m to th e b a la n c e o f t h e lo a n .” ¶ 1 1
. O n Ju n e 9 , 1 9 9 9 , A n g lin filed h is c o m p lain t ag a in st G u lf G u a ra n ty c laim in g th a t: 2 6 . G u lf G u a ra n ty b re a c h e d th e c o n tr a c ts b e tw e e n it a n d A n g lin
. . . . 2 9 . A ltern a tiv e ly , the a c tio n s o f G u lf G u a ra n ty , b y a n d th ro u g h its a g e n t, cr eat ed a j us t i f

i abl e r el i ance on the partof A ngl i n r equi r i ng r ei ns t at ementof th e c o n tr a c ts a t q u e s tio n .[ ] 12 In its a n sw e r, G u lf G u a ra n ty re sp o n d e d th a t: [p ]ur su a n t to the ap p lica tio n su b m itted to [A n g lin ], G u lf G u a ra n ty h a d n in e ty ( 90) days f

r om t he dat e of

the l oan t o decl i ne to in s u re [A n g lin ] i f G u lf G uar anty f

ound hi m nott o be a n i ns ur abl e r i s k. W i thi n ni nety ( 90) days f r om the dat e of

the l oans G ul f

G uar anty det erm i ned t hat[ A ngl i n] w as not[ an] i ns ur abl e r i s k and pr oper l y decl i ned to in su re [A n g lin ].
. . . B e c a u se G u lf G uar anty pr oper l y exer ci s ed i t s r i ghtt o decl i ne t o i ns ur e [ A ngl i n] , no contr act e x iste d a fte r th e d a te G u lf G u a ra n ty e x e rc ise d its rig h t. ( Em ph a s i s a dd e d)
. O n M a y 1 3, 20 00 , A ng l i n d i e d o f A LS. 13

### 8

¶ 1 2
. B y S e p tem b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 , w h e n G u lf G u a ra n ty file d its m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, i tas s ert ed that“ca ncel l ed” and “decl i ned” w er e s ynonym ous t erm s and dec l ar ed “[ a] l l of [ the] cov erage forcredi tli fe and d i sabi l i ty insur ance w as cance l l ed and/ ordecl i ned

w ith in
n in e ty (9 0 ) d a y s o f th e d a tes o f th e lo a n s in q u e stio n p e r th e ter m s o f th e [c]e rtifica tes in q u e stio n .” (E m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e re fo re , G u lf G u a ra n ty m a in tain e d tha t “[it] is e n tit led to
su m m a ry ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f la w .” In r e s p o n s e , A n g lin a ss e rte d th a t G u lf G u a ra n ty “onl y r es erved the r i ghtt o ‘ decl i ne ’ c o v e ra g e , nott o cance lc o v era g e.” (E m p h asis ad d ed ). O n Sept ember22, 2005, the C i r cui tC our tof Lee C ounty hear d G ul f G uar anty’ s m ot i on f

or
s um m ary j udgm ent . A tthe hea r i ng, G ul f G uar anty not abl y s t at ed: [ t ] here w as n o c la im thatw as pr es ent ed pr i ort o thei rde ci s i on nott o acc eptthe r i s k. I f ther e had been, w e w oul d be her e t al ki ng aboutan ent i r el y di f f er ent cas e. . . . T hey pr obabl y w oul d have j us tpai d him , b ecaus e eve ry i ns ur ance c o m p a n y is fa m ili a r w ith th e fa c t th a t pos t - clai m under w r i t i ngi s pr ohi bi t ed , butt he S up rem e C ou rthas neve rsa id th a t pr e- clai m under w r i t i ngis pr ohi bi t ed. ( E m phas i s added)
. Fol l ow i ng the hea r i ng, the C i r cui tC our tof L ee Count y ent er ed i t s or der d ism iss in g A n g lin w ith p re ju d ice , fin d in g th a t “th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t w ith
re g a rd to th e c laim s p re se n ted in th e [c]o m p lain t, an d
. . . [G u lf G u a ra n ty ] i s e n tit led to ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f la w .” O n N o v e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 5 , A n g lin filed n o tice o f a p p e a l. I S S UES ¶1 3
. T h is C o u rtw il l con side r:

### State d othe rwi se , wi llthi s Cour t grant an insuranc e c ompany gre at er ri ghts than 14 

### tho se it reservedfor itself inthe co ntract? 9 (1 ) W h e th e r th e trial c o u rt e rre d in g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t fo r G u lf G u ara n ty b ec au se it“c an ce ll ed ” ra ther tha n “d ec li n ed ” A n g li n ’s cred itli fe i ns ur ance cover age. 14 (2 ) W h e th e r M iss iss ip p i law p ro h ib ited G u lf G u a ra n ty fro m ca n c e lli n g c re d it life in s u ra n c e c o v e ra g e o n th e g ro u n d th a t A n g lin w a s u n in su ra b le, w h e re it i nit i al l y is sued the cov erage w i tho ut as king hea l th q uest i on s. (3) W h ethe r M issi ssipp i l aw esto p s G u lf G u ara n ty fro m c an ce ll ing cre d itli fe i nsurance co verage aft er the o nsetof a di sabl i ng and fat al i l l ness. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 1 4 . T h is C o u rt:
em p loy s a d e n o v o stan d ard in rev iew ing a tri al co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary ju d g m e n t. O ’N

e a l S tee l, In c v. Mille tte , 7 9 7 S o . 2d 8 6 9 , 8 7 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). In cond ucti ng the de no vo r eview , this C ou rtl oo ks atal l evi den t i ary m at t ers , i ncl udi ng admi s s i ons i n pl eadi ngs , a ns w e r s t o i nt err ogat or i es , depos i t i ons , and a ff id a v its
. L ee v. G olden T r iangle Planning & D ev. D ist . , I nc. , 797 So. 2d 84 5, 84 7 (M i ss. 20 01 ). T his e v ide nce m ustbe v i ew ed in the li gh tm ost f avor abl e t o the party agai nstw hom the mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm enthas b e e n m a d e . [C ita tio n s o m itte d ]. N oxubee Count

y School D is t . v. U nited N ati onal I ns. Co. , 88 3 S o . 2d 11 59 , 11 63 (M i ss. 2 0 0 4 ). “ If an y tr iable issu es o f fact ex ist , the tri al co u rt ’s de cisi o n to g ran t sum m ary j udgm entw i l l be r ever s ed. O therw i s e the dec i s i on i s af f i r m ed. ” P r i c e v. P u r d u e P h a r ma Co. , 9 2 0 S o . 2 d 4 7 9 , 4 8 4 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). See al s o M iss. R . C iv. P. 56 (c).

### Seeals o Provident Li feand Accident I

ns. Co. v. Goel, 274 F. 3d 984, 991 ( 5 Cir
. 1 5 th 

### 2001) ( “Mi ss is sippi courts s tric tly c onstrueany ambi guit y in an insuranc e pol ic y aga ins t t he ins ure r. ”)
. 10 A N A L Y S IS I. W h e th e r th e tr ia l co u r t er r e d in g r a n tin g su m m a r y ju d g m e n t fo r G u lf G u a r a n ty b e c a u se it “ c a n c e lled ” r a th e r th a n “ d e c lin e d ” A n g lin ’s c r e d it l i f e i nsurance cover age . ¶ 1 5 . “ T h e in te rp re ta tio n o f a n i n s u r a n c e p o li c y i s a q u e s tio n o f l a w , n o t o n e o f fa c t.” U nited N ati onal , 8 8 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 6 5 . Q u e stio n s o f la w a re re v iew e d d e n o v o b y th is C o u rt. See S p e a rs v. S ta te , 9 4 2 S o . 2 d 7 7 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). ¶ 1 6
. “ In su ra n c e p o lic ies a re c o n tra c ts, a n d a s su c h , th e y a re to b e e n fo rc e d a c c o rd in g to theirprovis i on s. . . . W hen part i es t o a co ntr actm ake m utual prom i ses ( barr i ng som e defense
o r c o n d itio n w h ic h e x c u s e s p e rf o rm a n c e ), th e y a re e n title d to th e b e n e fi t o f t h e irb a rg a in .” U nited N ati onal , 8 8 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 6 6 . T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t: [g] en era ll y , u n d er M issi ssipp i l aw , w h en the w o rds o f an insu ran ce p o li cy are p lai n an d u n am b igu o u s, the c o u rtw il l afford them th e ir plain, ord inary m e a n in g a n d w ill a p p ly th e m a s w ri tte n . P aul Rever e L i

f e I ns. Co. v. P r ince , 375 So. 2d 417, 418 ( M i s s . 1979)
. U nderM i s s i s s i ppi l aw , am biguous and uncl earpol i cy l anguage m us tbe r es ol ved i n f avorof the non- dr af

t i ng party – th e in s u re d
. H

ar rison v. A l

l s tate I ns. Co. , 66 2 S o. 2d 10 92 , 10 94 (M i ss. 1995)
. [ ] Fur ther , pr ovi s i ons thatl i m i to rexcl ude cove r age a r e t o be

15 cons trued li beral l y i n f avorof the i ns ur ed and mosts tr ongl y agai ns tthe in s u re r. N

ati onwide Mut

. I ns . Co. v. G ar r i

ga , 6 3 6 S o . 2d 65 8, 66 2 (M i ss. 1 9 9 4 ). U nited N ati onal , 883 So. 2d at1165. T hi s Courti s “ bound t o enf or ce c ontr actl anguage as
w r i t t en and gi ve i ti t s pl ai n a nd or di nary meani ng i f i ti s c l eara nd una m bi guous . [ C i t at i ons
om i t t ed]
. ” Miss iss ip

p i Fa rm B u re a u Ca s. In s. Co . v. B ritt , 82 6 S o. 2d 12 6 1, 12 66 (M i ss. 2 0 0 2 ).

### 11

¶17. T his C ou rt rel i es upon the expr es s l anguage of the cert i f i cat es of i ns ur ance . I n so doi ng, w e s hal l nota ccor d e i therpa r ty gr eat erordi f f er entr i ght s than they agr eed upon a tt he tim e o f co n tra c t fo rm a tio n . In the c a se su b ju d ice , the e x p re ss lan g u a g e in e a c h c e rtifica te of i ns ur ance i s pl ai n and unambi guous . I te xpl i ci t l y pr ovi des that“[ i ] f [ G ul f G uar anty] f

i nds the I ns ur ed D ebt ori s notan i ns ur abl e r i s k, i tr es erves the ri ghtt o decl i ne the I ns ur ance
w i thi n 90 da ys of

the D at e of

L oan by m ai l i ng not i ce of decl i nat i on di r ect l

y to the C r edi t or B e n e f i c i a r y a n d r e t u r n i n ga l lp r e mi u ms c o llec ted fo r th is C erti fi ca te. ” (E m p h asis ad d ed ). T h e c o n tr o v ersy h ere arises b ec au se, w ith in n inety d ay s o f th e d ate o f th e loa n , G u lf G u ara n ty m ail ed n o ti ce o f cance l lat i on d ir ec tl y to P eo p le’s B an k reg ard ing the c red itli fe in su ra n c e c o v e ra g e a n d re tu rn e d a ll p re m iu m s. A s c a n c e llatio n a n d d e c lin a tio n a re c lea rly notsynonymous t erm s , foc us i ng upon the cl ar i ty of the contr actual pr ovi s i on i s a r ed herr i ng. See S tate Farm Mu t

. A u to In s. Co. v. S cit

zs , 3 9 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 1 , 1 3 7 2 (M iss. 1 9 8 1 ) (th is C o u rt
w i l l notc r e a t e a mbi gu i t i e s w he r e the y d o n ote xi s t )
. I ns t e a d, the pl a i n a nd un a mbi gu ous te rm “ d e c lin e ” m u s t b e a ff o rd e d its “ p la in , o rd in a ry m e a n in g ” a n d b e a p p lie d “ a s w ri tte n .” U nited N ati onal , 883 So. 2d at1165. ¶ 1 8
. A n g lin m a in tain s th a t th e p ro v isio n a t iss u e m e re ly g a v e G u lf G u a ra n ty “ th e rig h t to ‘d e c lin e ’ c o v e ra g e u n d e r c e rta in c irc u m sta n c e s. It d id n o t g iv e G u lf G u a ra n ty th e rig h t to ‘c a n c e l’ in su ra n c e . N e v e rth e les s a n d c o n tra ry to p o licy te rm s, G u lf G u a ra n ty c a n c e lled a ll thr ee c r edi tl i f

e i ns ur ance pol i ci es w hi ch i ti s s ued t o [ A ngl i n, ] ” butneverdecl i ned w i thi n t he
n inety d ay w ind o w p rov ided
. In re p ly, G u lf G u ara n ty as serts th at A n g li n i s elev ati n g form
overs ubs t ance . I n i t s es t i m at i on, “[ t ] o the ext entthatther e i s a di f f er ence i n m eani ng betw een the t erm s ‘ canc el l ed’ and ‘ decl i ned, ’ the f ocus s houl d cent ero n t he subs t ance of

### Gu lf Gu arantyalternativ el yarg uedthat u se of th e term “declin ed,” as o pp osedto 16 

### “c anc el le d,”was a di stinc ti on without a dif fe re nce . Gulf Guaranty furthe r a ss erts that i ts condi ti onalac ceptance of Angl in a s an 17 

### ins ura bleri sk wa s permissibl e unde r Mi ss is sippi l aw. Without que stion, condi ti onal acceptan ce is permissib le. See Am erican Na t. Ins. C o. v. W alters , 230 Mi ss . 616, 634, 93 So. 2d 616, 623 (1957) . Howe ver , the pe rm is sibil it y of c onditiona l a cc ept anc e obs cur es the true issu e over wh ich th is Co urt mu st delib erate, namely , was can cellationof Ang lin’s cred it li feins urancecove ra ge e quiva le nt t o dec linati on? I f ther e i s a dis tinction be twe en c anc e l l at i onand

de c l i nat i on , di sc uss ed sup ra , then a condi ti onalac ceptancemay only be cance ll ed, not de cl ine d, a s only cance ll ation pres uppose s an earl ie r a cc ept anc e ( condi ti onal or other wis e)
. 12 G ul f G uar anty’ s act i on i n t erm i nat i ng the cove r age i n ques t i on. ” G ul f G uar anty ar gues t hat 16 t he t er ms o f

c ov e r a ge i n the c e r t i f i c a t e s of i ns ur a nc e “ r e s e r ve d the r i gh tt o p ur s ue
u n d e rw ri tin g f

o r a p e rio d o f n in e ty (9 0 ) d a y s. In th e in ter im , co v e ra g e w a s c o n d iti o n a lly pr ovi de d un t i l s uc h t i me, i f a ny , a s i twas d e t e r mi ne d tha tthe i ns ur e d r i s k w as not
a c c e p tab le.” A s s u c h , G u lf G u a ra n ty m a in tain s th a t “th e su b sta n c e o f w h a t G u lf G u a ra n ty di d w i th r egar d t o the J ul y 31, 1998 [ c] ert i f i cat es w as t o decl i ne t o f i nal i ze i t s condi t i onal
a c c e p ta n c e [ ] o f [ A n g lin ] a s a n in s u ra b le ri s k .”

17 ¶19. “[ W ] her e the i ns ur ance pol i cy does not pr ovi de the def i ni t i on for a t erm or phr as e, thos e w or ds ar e af

f or ded thei ror di nary and popul arm eani ng. ” U nited N ati onal , 883 S o. 2d at1165 ( ci t i ng B lackledge v. O m ega I ns. Co. , 7 4 0 S o . 2 d 2 9 5 , 2 9 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )). In d e te rm in in g th e o rd in a ry m e a n in g , th is C o u rt w ill o ft e n c o n s u lt le a d in g d ic tio n a ri e s . See Me rr im a c kMu t. Fire In s. Co . v. McD ill , 6 7 4 S o . 2 d 4 , 8 -9 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ); A m er i can G uarantee and Li ab. I

ns. Co. v. T

he 1906 Co. , 27 3 F
. 3d 60 5, 61 8-19 (5 C i r. 200 1). I n so th d o in g , this C o u rt find s th a t th e term s “ c a n c e l” a n d “ d e c lin e ” a re d istin g u ish a b le. T o “ c a n c e l”

### Acco rd in g t o B lack’s L aw D iction ary, to “cancel” means “ 2 : [ t] o te rm inatea 18 

### prom is e, obli gation, or right .”Bla ck’ s Law Dic ti onar y 218 (8 ed. 2004).

th 

### Acco rdin g to Black ’s LawDictio nary , “declin ation ” means “ 2 : [a]n act of refu sal.” 19 

### Bla ck’ s Law Dic ti onar

y at 439. Ad diti o n al ly , th e recordreflects that Gulf Guaranty failedto “d ecline” mo nth ly 20 

### dis abi li ty insuranc e c overageon Cer ti fi cateNumbe r 1746754 7 . 13 me a n s “ 2
. [ t ] o a n n u l o ri n v a l i d a t e . ” W e b s t e r ’ s I I Ne w Co l l e g e Di c t i o n a ry 1 6 1 ( 2 0 0 1 )
. By 18
co n tr ast, to “d ec li n e” m ea n s “ 1
. [t ] o refu se to d o , c o n side r, o r ac ce p t som ethin g . ” W eb ster’s I I N ew C ol l ege D i ct i onary at293. C l ear l y, t o “ca ncel ” pr es um es pr i orval i dat i on or 19
a c c e p ta n c e , w h e re a s to “ d e c lin e ” d o e s n o t. See Malta L i f e I ns. Co. v. W

as hington , 552 So. 2d 827, 829 ( M i s s . 1989) ( “[ i ] ts houl d a l s o be not ed thatthe mast erpol i cy pr ovi des notthat the C om pany may r ej ect the exc es s cover age, butthati tm ay cance lthe exc es s cover age
w ith in thirty d ay s aft er rece ipt o f no ti ce of th e g ran ti n g of th e insu ran ce . T h e u se o f th e w o rd

‘ cance l ’ cl earl y co ntem plat es a poli cy thathas alr eady be com e ef f ect i ve . ”) (em ph asi s adde d ). W hi l e G ul f

G uar anty ass ert s t hatt he di s t i nct i on el evat es form oversubs t ance , w i th r es pect t o th i s c o n tr a c tu a l p r o v i s i o n , th e f o r m a n d th e s u b s t a n c e a r e i n e x tr i c a b l y c o n n e c t e d
. As
s um m ary j udgm entw as gr ant ed f orG ul f G uar anty, t hi s C our tm us tvi ew the evi dence “i n t he lig h t m o s t f

a v o ra b le ” to A n g lin
. U nited N ati onal , 883 So. 2d at1163. T he pl ai n l anguage of t he pr ovi s i on gave G ul f G uar anty t he r i ghtt o “decl i ne” c over age w i thi n ni nety days of t he l oan, notacc eptt hen “ca ncel , ” oracce ptand re i ns ur e, then “c ance l
. ” G ul f G uar anty f

ai l ed to “ d e c lin e ” c re d it l ife in su ra n c e c o v e ra g e w ith in n in e ty d a y s o f e a c h lo a n . T h e re fo re , this 20 C o u rt co n c lu d e s th a t th e tri a l co u rt err e d in g ra n tin g su m m a ry jud g m e n t fo r G u lf G u a ra n ty b e c a u se u n d e r th e p la in a n d u n a m b ig u o u s la n g u a g e o f th e c e rtifica te o f in su ra n c e it

### It

st at ed only that “ our c ompany will not beable to ac ce

pt the d isabilitycov erage.” 21 

### (Em phas is adde d). 14 i m pr oper l y s oughtt o “ca ncel , ” r athert han “dec l i ne, ” A ngl i n’ s cr edi tl i f e i ns ur ance cover age on C ert i f i cat es N um ber1746754 0 and 1746755 0
. ¶20. M or eover , e ven as s um i ng a r guendo that the p oli cy langu age is am bi guous , s uch pr ovi s i ons ar e t o “be r es ol ved i n fa vorof the non- dr af t i ng par ty – the i ns ur ed, ” id
. at1165 ( ci t i ng H ar r is on , 662 So. 2d at1094) , and i f they “l i m i torexcl ude cove r age [ they] ar e t o be
cons trued l i ber al l y i n f

avorof the i ns ur ed and m os ts tr ongl y agai ns tthe i ns ur er . ” Id
. ( ci t i ng G ar r i ga , 6 3 6 S o . 2 d a t 6 6 2 ). T h e m o n th ly d isa b ili ty in su ra n c e c o v e ra g e o n C e rtifica te N um ber1746755 7w a s d e c lin e d b y G u lf G u a ra n ty . T h e c re d it l ife in su ra n c e c o v e ra g e in 21 C ert i f i cat es 1746754 0 , 1746755 0 , and 1746759 0 , h o w e v e r, w e re c a n c e lled . G u lf G u a ra n ty has no expl anat i on forthe l i ngui s t i c f or m di f f er ence i n the mont hl y di s abi l i ty i ns ur ance
c o v e ra g e lette r a n d th e c re d it l ife in su ra n c e c o v e ra g e lette r. A d d iti o n a lly , G u lf G u a ra n ty admi t s thati tr ei ns ur ed the cr edi tl i f e i ns ur ance cover age of C ert i f i cat e N um ber1746754 0
. T o “ re in su re ” m e a n s “ 1 . [t ]o in su re a g a in . 2 . T o in su re b y c o n tra c tin g to tra n sfe r in w h o le
ori n pa r ta r i s k orc ont i ngent l i abil i ty alr eady c over ed u n d e r a n e x is tin g c o n tr a c t.” W e b ste r’s II N e w C o lleg e D ictio n a ry a t 9 3 4 ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ). In o rd e r to c o n tra c t to tr ans f eral l orpartof

A ngl i n’ s cert i f

i cat e of i ns ur ance , G ul f

G uar anty had acce pt ed and then
c o n tra c ted to tra n sfe r a p o rtio n o f th e risk to a n o th e r in s u re r, th u s n u lli fy in g its rig h t to d e c lin e . A fte r su c h a n o b v io u s a c t o f a c c e p tan c e , o n ly c a n c e llatio n , n o t de c lin a tio n , w o u ld be perm i s s i bl e. H ow ever , G ul f G uar anty, the d raf

t er of the p rovi si on s, con tractuall y reserved for it self o n ly the r i ghtt o decl i ne . T h e re fo re , th is p ro v isio n o u g h t to b e “ c o n stru e d lib e ra lly

### 15

in f a v o r o f” A n g lin “ a n d m o s t s tr o n g ly a g a in s t” G u lf G u a ra n ty . U

nited N ati onal , 883 So. 2 d at 11 6 5 . G u lf G u a ra n ty h ad o n ly the co n tr ac tual ri g h t t o “d ec li n e” A n g li n ’s cred itli fe in su ra n c e c o v e ra g e , n o t “ c a n c e l” it. T h e re fo re , e v e n if th e p o licy la n g u a g e is a m b ig u o u s, th is C o u rtco n clud es th at th e tri al co u rterred in g ran ti n g su m m ary jud g m en t bec au se G u lf G uar anty i m pr oper l y act ed t o “ca ncel , ” r atherthan “de cl i ne, ” A ngl i n’ s cr edi tl i f e i ns ur ance
cover age on Cer t i f

i cat es N um ber1746754 0 and 1746755 0
. I I . W he t he r M i s s i s s i ppi l aw pro hi bi t ed G ul f G uar ant y f

r om c anc e l l i ng cre di t l i f e i nsurance cover age on t he gr ound t hat A ngl i n w as uni nsurabl e, w h ere i t i n i ti all y is sued the cov erag e w i thou t aski n g h ealt h q u est i on s. ¶21. T he Jul y 31 , 1 99 8, cert i fi cat es of i ns ur ance ( C ert i f

i cat es N um ber1746754 0 and 1746755 0 ) w e re iss u e d w ith o u t a n y h e a lth q u e stio n s b y P o rte r o r th e re q u ire m e n t fo r a h e a lth ques t i onnai r e. T hus , A ngl i n ar gues thatG ul f G uar anty “mani f

es t ed i t s i nt ent , under M iss iss ip p i law , to ‘ in su re th e w o rld .’ F o r th is re a so n , G u lf G u a ra n ty c o u ld n o t leg a lly
canc el [ A ngl i n’ s ] i ns ur ance on the bas i s of a hea l th condi t i on. ” See S o u the rn U n itedL if e I ns. Co. v. Caves , 481 S o. 2d 764, 768 ( M i s s . 1985) ( “[ w ] her e an i ns ur ance company m akes no ef f or tt o es t abl i s h cl eara nd meani ngf ul gui del i nes t o as s i s ti t s agent s i n di s cerni ng per s ons el i gi bl e f orcover age, butm er el y re l i es on the age nt s ’ j udgm entt o s el ectthos e per s ons appea r i ng t o be hea l thy, thatcompany by i t s act i ons m ani f es t s an i nt ent i on t o ‘ i ns ur e the
w o rl d
. ’”). ¶ 2 2
. Caves , how ever , i s di s t i ng ui s ha bl e f r om t he c a s e s ub j ud i c e . The r e , Cave s ’ s l oan of f i ceri s s ued hi m a cer t i f

i cat e of i ns ur ance forcr edi tl i f

e i ns ur ance cover age i n conj unct i on
w ith a n a u to m o b ile lo a n . See id
. at765- 66. T he ce r t i f i cat e of i ns ur ance cont ai ned a condi t i on thatC aves m us tbe i n i ns ur abl e heal th a tthe t i m e of i s s uance and thatthe i ns ur er

### Further more, in i ts me morandum bri ef in supp ort

of the m oti on for

summary 22 

### judgm ent , Gul f Gu aranty state d, “ [Angl in] was ‘c over ed’ unti l t he c erti fi cate s we re terminatedin O ctob er.” 16 “had 31 da ys f

r om t he r ece i ptof

thei rcopy i n the home of f i ce t o i nves t i gat e and a cce ptor
r ej ectthe i nsura nce. ” Id
. at766. T w enty- tw o days af t erthe ce r t i f

i cat e of i ns ur ance w as i s s ued, and bef

or e the f i r s tl oan paym entw as m ade, C aves di ed of “a he artatt ack a s s oci at ed
w i th hi s pr e- exi s t i ng heartcondi t i on. ” Id
. A f t err ece i vi ng C aves ’s cl ai m , the i ns ur er p o stp o n e d p a y m e n t p e n d in g in v e stig a tio n a n d “ [a]fte r o b tain in g m e d ica l re c o rd s a n d re p o rts of [ C aves ]
. . . r ej ect ed the cl ai m , f i ndi ng that[ C aves ] w as not i n i nsurabl e hea l th att he i s s uance of

the pol i cy. T he com pan y then r ef unded the .
. . pr emi um . . . . ” Id
. H er e, how ever , A ngl i n had notyetf i l ed any c l ai m s bef

or e Peopl e’ s B ank’ s r ece i ptof t he
c a n c e llatio n letter s fro m G u lf G u a ra n ty . T h a t fa c t is sig n ifica n t b e c a u se e v e n G u lf G u a ra n ty admi t t ed thathad ther e bee n a cl ai m , “w e w oul d be he r e t al ki ng a boutan ent i r el y di f f er ent
c a s e . . . [G u lf

G u a ra n ty ] p ro b a b ly w o u ld h a v e ju s t p a id h im . . . .” ¶23. G ul f

G uar anty contractuall y had the r i ghtt o decl i ne th e in su ra n c e c o v e ra g e w ith in ni nety da ys r egar dl es s of w hetherhe al th que s t i ons w er e as ked by Por t erorans w er ed on the
a p p lica tio n fo r in su ra n c e fo rm . T h e p ro b le m is th a t G u lf G u a ra n ty a ss e rts th a t it condi t i onal l y acc ept ed A ngl i n, w i th the r i ghtt o c a n c e l in su ra n c e c o v e ra g e w ith in n in e ty days
. T hatas s ert i on i s i m pl i ci ti n i t s s t at ementatthe s um m ary j udgm enthear i ng thathad A ngl i n f i l ed a c l ai m , the ca s e w oul d be ent i r el y di f f er ent . H ow ever , the pl ai n l anguage of

22 the pr ovi s i on perm i t s G ul f G uar anty onl y t o decl i ne in s u ra n c e c o v e ra g e . T h a t w h ich is condi t i onal l y acc ept ed may notbe decl i ned , butonl y cance l l ed , be c a us e on l y c a nc el l at i on

### Except in si tuati ons wher e theproof of cl ai m or proof of los s require me nt ha s be en 23 

### waiv ed. See New Hampshire I ns. Co. v . Robert son , 352 So. 2d 1307, 1311 (Mi ss . 1977) ; Soso Trucki

ng Inc . v . Central I

ns. Agenc y , 236 So. 2d 398, 401- 02 (Mi ss . 1970)
. 17 pr es uppos es an ac cept ance ( condi t i onal orotherw i s e). T her ef or e, pr i ort o a cl ai m bei ng f i l ed, an i ns ur erm ay condi t i onal l y acce ptan i ns ur ed, re s ervi ng t he r i ghtt o cance lcre d itli fe 23 i ns ur ance c ov erage on the gr ound t hatthe i ns ur ed i s uni ns ur abl e, r egar dl es s of w hetheror
n o t h e a lth q u e s tio n s w e re p o s e d
. See G ul f G uarant y v. K el ley , 38 9 S o. 2d 92 0, 92 2 (M i ss. 1 9 8 0 ) ( in a s u it a s s e r ti n g fa ilu re to fu lf ill a n o b lig a tio n to p ro v id e in s u ra n c e c o v e ra g e , a
r ecogni zabl e def

ens e i s the non- abs ol ut e r i ghtof the i ns ur ance company, underthe t erm s of i t s pol i cy, t o cance lthe cert i f i cat e of i ns ur ance i s s ued w i thi n t he num berof da ys s peci f i ed i n the pol i cy f

orthe exe r ci s e of

such r i ght )
. H er e, how ever , G ul f G uar anty r es erved onl y the
r i ghtt o decl i ne , n o t cance l , c o v e ra g e . See Is s u e I. supra . II I. W h e th e r M iss iss ip p i la w e sto p s G u lf G u a r a n ty fr o m c a n c e lli n g c r e d it l i fe i n sura n ce cov erag e aft er the o n set of a d i sab l i n g a n d fat al i l l n ess. ¶24. A ngl i n as s ert s that“G ul f G uar anty’ s canc el l at i on of [ A ngl i n’ s ] pol i cy af

t erthe ons et of hi s f at al i l l nes s w as un cons ci onabl e. C l ear l y, a per s on di agnos ed w i th the f at al L ou G ehr i g’ s di s eas e coul d notobt ai n i ns ur ance f r om an y othersour ce much l es s any other reput able s ou rce. ” In supp ortthereof, he cit es K el ley , 389 So. 2d at920. I n thatcas e, K el l ey
w a s is su e d a c e rtifica te f o r c re d it l ife in su ra n c e c o v e ra g e in c o n n e c tio n w ith a n a u to m o b ile lo a n o n J u n e 2 8 , 1 9 7 5 . See id
. a t9 2 1
. Th e c e r t i f i c a t e o f i n s u r a n c e p r o v i d e d th a tth e t e r ms of the unat tached

m a s te r p o lic y a p p lie d
. See id . T h e m a ste r p o licy p ro v id e d th a t: [t] h e c o m p a n y m a y , w ith in n in e ty (9 0 ) d a y s fro m d a te o f iss u e o f a c e rtifica te to a b o rro w e r . . . can celt he i ns ur ance on the l i f e of s uch borr ow erf

i ve ( 5) days af t erw r i t t en not i ce ha s been mai l ed t o the cr edi t ort oget herw i th the

### 18

c o m p a n y ’s c h e c k fo r th e u n e a rn e d p o rtio n o f th e p re m iu m a c tu a lly p a id there for. Id
. ( emphasi s added)
. O n J une 24, 1975, K el l ey had be en exa m i ned by hi s per s onal p h y sic ian an d d e e m e d in g o o d h e a lth
. See id . O n Ju ly 1 , 1 9 7 5 , K ell ey su ffered a h ea rt
a tta c k
. See id . W h e n G u lf G u a ra n ty le a rn e d o f th e h e a rt a ttac k o n Ju ly 1 8 , 1 9 7 5 , it “ca ncel l ed the pol i cy[ , ]
. . . not i f i ed the bank w hi ch w as the named benef i ci ary by m ai l , and
r ef unded t he un earned prem i um . ” Id . K e lle y d ie d o n J u ly 2 4 , 1 9 7 5 . See id
. B as ed upon thats etof

f act s , thi s C our ts t at ed: D ef endanta r gues i tha d the abs ol ut e r ightunderthe t erm s of i t s m as t erpol i cy t o canc el the ce r t i f

i cat e of i ns ur ance i s s ued t o K el l ey w i thi n 90 days f r om the d a te o f is s u e . O r di nar i l y, this def

ens e w ould be upheld; how eve r , i n thi s case the ons etof

K el l ey’ s f

at al i l l nes s occurr ed af

t erthe pol i cy w as i n ef f ectand cont i nued w i thoutr emi s s i on unt i l hi s death. C ons i der at i ons of publ i c pol i cy per s uade us that , exer ci s e by the i ns ur erof i t s ri gh tto canc el s houl d notbe perm i t t ed af

t erthe ons etof

a f at al i l l nes s and dea th ther ef r om , upon the gr ound o f e s to p p e l. . . .

. . . A llo w in g d e fe n d a n t t o ca n c e l th e p o licy a fte r K e lley b e c a m e u n in su ra b le w oul d be uncons ci onabl e bec aus e K el l ey had then r eached suc h a phys i cal c o n d it ion that h e w as u n ab le t o o b tai n d esirab le i n su ran ce in an y rep u tab le company bef

or e hi s death. Id
. at 92 2 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 2 5 . In res p o n se , G u lf G u a ra n ty initia lly arg u e s th a t “[e ]ve n if [A n g lin ’s] a rg u m e n t in th is
re g a rd h a d m e rit, w h ich it d o e s n o t, [ A n g lin ] did n o t p le a d e s to p p e l o r p u b lic p o licy in h is C om pl ai nt . N ei therdi d [ A ngl i n] ar gue thi s t heory i n the courtbel ow . ” Even as s um i ng that the ar gum enti s notproc edur al l y bar r ed, how ever , G ul f G uar anty i ns i s t s that“the condi t i onal natur e of the i ns ur ance cover age w as cl ear l y c om m uni cat ed on the [ c] ert i f i cat e of [ i ] ns ur ance its e lf , k n o w le d g e o f w h ic h is im p u te d to th e in s u re d .”

### 19

¶26. T hi s C our thas “ been cons i s t enti n hol di ng thatw e nee d notcons i derm att er s r ai s ed f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe al , w hi ch pr act i ce w oul d have t he pr act i cal ef f ectof depr i vi ng t he tr i al courtof

the opportuni ty t o f

i r s trul e on the i s s ue, s o thatw e ca n then r evi ew s uch tr i al
courtrul i ng unde rthe appr opr i at e s t andar d of r evi ew . ” A lexanderv. D ani el , 904 So. 2d 172, 183 ( M i s s . 2005). F ort hi s r eas on, thi s C our tconcl udes thatcons i der at i on of thi s i s s ue on appea l i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed. H ow ever , s i nce t hi s cas e i s bei ng r emanded f ortr i al , the pr ocedur al barf

orpurpos es of

c ons i der at i on on appea l i s nota pr ohi bi t i on upon the part i es t o l i t i gat e thi s i s s ue. CO NC L US I ON ¶27. B as ed upon the af or ement i oned ana l ys i s , thi s Courtf i nds thatthe C i r cui tC our tof L ee C ou nty erred i n grant i ng s um m ary j ud gm ent forG ulf G uarant y. T heref

ore, this C o u rt
r ever s es and r emands t o t he ci r cui tcourtf orpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶ 2 8
. REVERSED AND REM AND ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , DI AZ , EAS LE Y, CARL S ON, GRAVE S AND DI CK I NS ON , J J . , CO NC UR . CO B B , P . J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .