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 6 - CT - 0 1 3 6 5 - S CT DI M PL E G. W

HI TAK ER AND CLY

DE W HI TAK ER
v. T & M FO ODS , L T D. AN D R OB ER T

Y. KENT ON M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 26/ 2006 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 S : J I M W AI DE D. KI RK THARP R IC H A R D S H A N E M cL A U G H L IN W . BR E NT M c BR I DE ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE ES : J AM ES H. HEI DEL BER G S T E P HE N W AL KE R B UR RO W J E S S I CA M AR I E DUP ONT NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY 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/ 16/ 2009 M O T I O N FO R R E H E A R I N G FI L E D : 10/ 20/ 2008 M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he m ot i on forre hear i ng of T & M F oods , L t d. , and R obertY . K enti s deni ed. T he p rev iou s o p inion s o f th is C o u rtare w ith d raw n an d this op inion su b sti tuted there for. ¶2. D i m pl e and C l yde W hi t aker appea l the M i s s i s s i ppi C our t of A ppeal s ’ af f i r m ance of the C ir cu itC o u rto f L ee C o u n ty’s d ism issal of th eir case w ith p rejud ice. T h e c ir cu itco u rt gr ant ed T& M Foods’ Rul e 60( b) m ot i on f orr el i ef f r om the ci r cui tcourt ’ s pr i oror derdenyi ng

### 2

s um m ary j udgm entt o T & M Foods and R obertY . K ent . Fol l ow i ng di s m i s s al of thei rcas e, th e W h ita k e rs a p p e a le d
. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a ff ir m e d
. See W

hitak e rv. Kent , 20 07 M i ss. A pp . L E X IS 63 4, at*1 (M i ss. C t . A pp . S ept. 25 , 20 07 ). T his C ou rtgrant ed the W hit akers’

“ P e titio n fo r W ri t o f C e rt io ra ri .” FACTS ¶3. I n D ece m berof 1999, w hi l e w or ki ng i n t he cour s e and sc ope of hi s em ploym entas a del i very dr i verf

orT & M F oods , a St eak- O utf r anchi s ee, K entw as i nvol ved i n an aut om obi l e ac ci dentw hi ch i nj ur ed M r s . W hi t aker
. She i ni t i al l y i ncurr ed $891. 95 i n m edi cal
e x p e n se s. A p p ro x im a tely o n e w e e k a fte r th e a c c id e n t, a re p re se n tativ e o f P ro g re ss iv e G u lf I ns ur ance , K ent ’ s l i abil i ty i ns ur er , cont act ed the W hi t aker s r egar di ng s ett l ement . A tt he tim e , th e W h itak e rs w e re co n c e rn e d ab o u t th e eff e c t of the o u tsta n d in g m e d ica l b ill s o n th e ir
cr edi tr at i ng. Soon t her eaf t er , the Pr ogr es s i ve r epr es ent a t i ve r e turne d a ndi nf or m ed them t hat P ro g re s s iv e “ w o u ld n o t p a y [M rs . W h ita k e r’ s ] m e d ic a l b ills u n le s s s h e s ig n e d a R e le a s e .” O n J anuary 20, 2000, t he W hi t aker s si gned a “Ful l R el eas e of A l l C l ai m s w i th I ndemni ty” pr ovi di ng that , i n e xchange f or$1, 391. 95 f

r om Pr ogr es s i ve, the W hi t aker s w oul d “r el eas e, acqu i tand f

or everdi s char ge [ K ent ] and [ Pr ogr es s i ve]
. . . and al l otherper s ons , fi rm s,
corpor at i ons . . . of

and f r om any and a l l cl ai m s , act i ons , caus es of act i ons . . . w hi ch the [ W hi t aker s ] now [ have] orw hi ch may her eaf t eracc rue on ac countof ori n any w ay gr ow i ng
o u t o f [ th e ] a c c id e n t . . . .” ¶ 4
. S o o n the re a fte r, M rs. W h itak e r w a s d iag n o se d w ith tem p o ro m a n d ib u la r j o in t p a in
s yndr om e. H erphys i ci an i dent i f i ed the aut om obi l e acc i denta s a contr i but i ng f act ort o t he

### ByJun e 22 , 20 04 , Mr s . Wh i t ake r c l a i m s s heha d inc ur

r e d $ 11 3, 86 5. 37 i n m edi ca l 1 

### expe nse s, $1,427.33 in phar ma cy e xpens es , and $15,313. 57 in t ravelexpe nse s rel at ed t o the ac ci dent , f

or a tot alof $130, 606.27. 3 c o n d itio n . O n F e b ru a ry 2 1 , 2 0 0 1 , th e W h ita k e rs fi le d a c o m p la in t a g a in s t P ro g re s s iv e , K e n t,

1 and St eak- O utFr anchi s i ng, I nc. , s eeki ng a dec l ar at ory j udgm enti nval i dat i ng the J anuary 20, 2000, R el eas e by al l egi ng tw o t heor i es . Fi r s t , they al l eged “m utual m i s t ake, ” by as s ert i ng that“[ t ] he part i es t o the R el eas e di d notknow of D i m pl e W hi t aker ’ s i nj ur i es unt i l af t erthe R el eas e w as exec ut ed. ” Second, the compl ai ntal l eged “ negl i gentori nt ent i onal
m i s r epr es ent at i on by the Pr ogr es s i ve age nt , w ho r epr es ent ed thatthe purpos e of the payment of Fi ve H undr ed D ol l ar s ( $500. 00) w as onl y f or. . . W hi t aker ’ s i nconveni ence. T he r eal purpos e w as t o keep Pl ai nt i f f s fr om re cei vi ng j us tcompensa t i on f orany i nj ur i es thatm i ght d e v e lo p fr o m th e a c c id e n t.” ¶5. O n M ay 11 , 2 00 1, the W hit akers fi l ed a “F i rs tA m end ed C om pl ai nt ” against Pr ogr es s i ve, K ent , and T& M Foods. T he am ended compl ai ntadded t hat“[ n] otw i ths t andi ng the R el ease, [Progress i ve] an d [ K ent] an d [ T & M F oo ds] are j oint l y li able f or [ W hit aker’ s] i nj ur i es . K entand [ T & M Foods] ar e l i abl e b ecause of thei rnegl i gence i n caus i ng the in ju rie s. [P ro g re ss iv e ] is jo in tly li a b le w ith K e n t an d [T & M F o o d s] b e c a u se o f th e ir liab ili ty pol i cy. ” The “Separ at e A ns w erand D efens es ” of K entand T& M Foods mai nt ai ned that “[ t ] he f ul l r el eas e of

al l cl ai m s w i th i nd em nity i s a val i d and enf or cea bl e contr actual
a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n p la in tif fs a n d d e fe n d a n ts .” ¶6. D ur i ng the penden cy of t he l i t i gat i on, Pr ogr es s i ve and the W hi t aker s ent er ed i nt o a
se p ara te “S ett lem en t A g ree m en t an d R elea se” on S ep tem b er 17 , 20 0 2
. Itno ted th a t, i nT he “Sett l em ent A gre ementand R el eas e” a dded that“Pr ogr es s i ve, atal l r el evant 2 t i m es , had i n e f

f ecta l i abi l i ty pol i cy i s s ued f ora nd on behal f

of [ K ent ]
. Pr ogr es s i ve does not i ns ur e [ T & M Foods] ori t s empl oyees , w hen ac t i ng i n the cour s e and s cope of empl oym ent fo r [ T & M F o o d s ].” 

### This exha ust ed the Progre ss ivepoli cy’ s $10, 000 limi tati on of l ia bil it y. 3 

### 4 obt ai ni ng the J anuary 20, 2000, R el eas e, “Pr ogr es s i ve di d notcont empl at e that[ K ent ] w as i n the cou rs e and scope o f hi s em ploym ent w i th [T& M F oo ds, ] ” and that “the earl i er R el ease 2

. . . i s now nul l , voi d, canc el l ed and o f no ef f ectas betw een the under s i gned. ” The
s i gnat or i es w er e Pr ogr es s i ve and the W hi t aker s . Pr ogr es s i ve pai d an addi t i onal $8, 608. 05 3 t o t he W hi t aker s i n consi der at i on forthe “r el eas e, di s char ge and [ t o] gi ve up al l cl ai m s and causes of act i on they hav e againstP r ogr es s i ve a ri s in g o u t o f t h e a u to m o b il e a c c id e n t.” ( E m phas i s added)
. T he W hi t aker s agr eed: th a t i n m ak ing an y p u rsuit of th eir clai m w ith resp ec t t o the a u tom o b ile a c c id e n t, th e

y w ill n o t se e k ex e c u tio n a g a in st p e rs o n a l a ss e ts o f [Ke n t] and, in ste a d , w ill se e k to sa tisfy a n y ju d g m e n t onl y f r om as s et

s of T& M Foods , and fro m a ny lia b ili ty in su ra n c e c a rr iero f [T & M Fo o d s] a p p lica b le t o the acc i dent
. . . i f

any. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶7 . T & M Foods, K ent ’ s empl oyer , w as t he “N amed I ns ur ed” on a “N on- O w ned A ut om obi l e Li abi l i ty I ns ur ance ” pol i cy w i th E vans t on I ns ur ance C om pany ( “Evanst on”)
cover i ng a t ot al of

t en dr i ver s . T he Evanst on pol i cy cove r ed f ood- del i very oper at i ons and def i ned “A ut o” as “a non[

- ] ow ned m ot orv ehi cl e, whi l e us ed to del i verf ood on behal

f of the N am ed Insured(s

)
. ” ( E m phas i s added)
. R egar di ng “C over age a nd L i m i tof L i abi l i ty, ” the pol i cy dec l ar ed “$1, 000, 000 combi ned s i ngl e l i m i tbodi l y i nj ury and pr operty damage eac h
a c c id e n t[, ]” w ith a d e d u c tib le o f “ [d ]ri v e r’s in su ra n c e o r $ 1 ,0 0 0 d e d u c tib le, w h ich e v e r is

### 5

gr eat er . ” The pol i cy def i ned “I ns ur ed” a s “any pe r s on oror gani zat i on qual i f yi ng as an i ns ur ed i n the W H O I S I N S U R E D s ect i on . . . . ” R egar di ng “W H O I S I N SU R E D , ” the p o li cy st ated “[y] o u are i n su red for a ny c o v e re d a u to . ” (Em ph asi s added ). T he p oli cy als o
s ubs t ant i vel y pr ovi ded: “[ f ] orany cove r ed aut o you don’ tow n, the i nsur ance pr ovi ded by thi s pol i cy i s exce s s overany othercol l ect i bl e i ns ur ance ” and “[ w ] e w i l l pay al l s um s t he insu red lega ll y m u st pa y as d am ag es b ec au se o f bo dil y i njury orpr operty damage t o w hi ch th is in s u ra n c e a p p lie s , caus ed by an ac ci dent and r es ul t i ng f

r om the ow ners hi

p, m ai nt enance
o r u se o f a c o v e re d

a u to , in e x c e s s o f t h e re te n tio n a m o u n t s ta te d in th e d e c la ra tio n s .” (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶8
. In the 2 00 2 “S ett l em ent A greem ent and R el ease, ” the W hit akers “ exp r es s l y r es er ve[

d]
a ll rig h ts to p ro c e e d a g a in st any part y . . . exc ept

P r ogr es s i ve and exce

ptpers onalas s et

s of [Ke n t]
. ” ( E m phas i s added)
. O n O ct ober31, 2002, the ci r cui tcourtent er ed an or der di s m i s s i ng Pr ogr es s i ve w i th pr ej udi ce, pr ovi di ng that“[ t ] hi s cas e s hal l co nti nu e as t o t he
re m a in in g d e fe n d a n ts . . . .” ¶ 9
. K e n t a n d T & M F o o d s su b se q u e n tly fil e d a “ M o tio n fo r S u m m a ry J u d g m e n t,” cont endi ng t hatthe J anuary 20, 2000, R el eas e “e xt i ngui s hed the Pl ai nt i f f s ’ caus e of

act i on
a g a in st [K e n t] a n d [T & M F o o d s].” A ltern a tiv e ly , the m o tio n m a in tain e d th a t, p u rsu a n t to the S ept ember17, 2002, “Sett l ementA gr eementand R el eas e, ” K ents houl d be di s m i s s ed,
a s “ th e r e a r e n o d a ma g e s th a twi l l b e r e c o v e r a b l e b y th e P l a i n t i f f s f r o m [ Ke n t ]
. ” On Sept ember9, 2004, the ci r cui tcourtdeni ed the “M ot i on f orSum m ary J udgm ent ” of K entand T & M Foods , e xcepta s t o the per s onal a s s et s of K ent , i m pl i ci t l y acc ept i ng the Sept ember17, 2002, “Sett l ementA gr eementand R el eas e” a s the oper at i ve i ns trum entby ci t i ng l anguage

### No motion f or r el ie f on be hal f of

Kent had be en f

il ed. 4 

### 6 ther ei n. I n addi t i on, the ci r cui tcourtgr ant ed the W hit aker s ’ m ot i on f ordef aul tj udgm ent
a g a in s t K e n t “ b e c a u s e o f h is fa ilu re to a p p e a r a t h is d e p o s itio n . . . .” ¶10. O n the day of

tr i al , M ay 8, 2006, T& M Foods f i l ed a “R ul e 60( b) M ot i on f orR el i ef f r om J udgm entorO r der , ” ar guing that“[s ] i nce the [ c] our t ’ s rul i ng on the M ot i on f or S um m ary Judg m ent, case l aw , upo n w hich Pl ai nti ff’s cl ai m s of vi cari ou s l i abil i ty as aga i nst [ T & M Foods] m us tbe bas ed, has been ove rrul ed[ , ] ” ci t i ng J& J T im berCom

pany v. B r o o me , 9 3 2 S o . 2 d 1 ( M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). T & M F o o d s a rg u e d th a t “ [e ]ith e r o f t h e R e le a s e s . . . ex ti n g u ishe d the P lai n ti ffs’ cau se o f acti o n ag ains t [ K en t] an d also there fore h is em p loy er, [ T & M Foods]
. [ T & M Foods] thus s houl d be r el i eved f r om t he C our t ’ s O r derof Sept ember [ 9] , 2004 and thi s sui ts houl d be, as a mat t erof l aw , f ul l y and f

i nal l y di s m i s s ed. ” The W hi t aker s pos i t ed thatthe Sept ember17, 2002, “Sett l ementA gr eemen tand R el eas e” w as th e o p e r a t i v e i n s tru m e n ta ti s s u e , a n d t h a ti tc l e a r l y “ p r e s e r v e [ d ] a l l c l a i m s a g a i n s tT &M F o o d s a n d its e m p lo y e e , a c tin g in th e c o u rs e a n d s c o p e o f h is e m p lo y m e n t.” ¶11. T he ci r cui tj udge, r el yi ng upon J& J T im ber, foun d “the rel ease of K ent . . . under eith er relea se . . . b ars a ll claim s o f vica ri o u s li ab il ity by the p lai n ti ff’ s [si c] ag ains t K en t’ s
e m p lo y e r, [ T & M F o o d s ], d e s p ite a n y a tte m p ts b y th e p la in tif fs to p re s e rv e th o s e ri g h ts .” ( E m phas i s added)
. T he cir cuitcourtgr ant ed T& M Foods’ “R ul e 60( b) M ot i on f orR el i ef fro m Ju d g m e n t o r O rd e r,” r e liev in g th e m fro m th e S e p tem b e r 9 , 2 0 0 4 , O rd e r d e n y in g th e ir “M ot i on forS um m ary J udgm ent , ” and a ddi ng thatT & M Foods a nd Kent “sh o u ld b e a n d are 4

### See paragraph 20 infra . TheCourt of Appe al s rec ogniz ed the e ff icacy of the 5 

### Sept em ber 17, 2002, “Se ttleme nt Agree me nt a nd Rel ea se ,”under

whic h only Progre ss ive was released , hav ing paidthe limits o f its liability p olicyandsatisfied th e deductib le cove ra ge of

theEvans ton pol ic y. 7 h e re b y e n tit led to Ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law .” T h e circ u it c o u rt ren d e re d “ Ju d g m e n t” in f avorof T & M Foods a nd Kent , di s m i s s i ng both w i th pr ej udi ce. ¶12. T her eaf

t er , the W hi t aker s f

i l ed a “ M ot i on t o A l t erorA m end J udgm ent , ” a “M ot i on f o rE v i d e n t i a r y He a r i n g , ” a “ M o t i o n t o Di s q u a l i f y Co u n s e l f

r o m R e p r e s e n t i n g Ro b e r tY. K ent , I ndi vi dual l y, ” and a “M ot i on f orL eave t o F i l e Second A m ended Com pl ai ntB as ed U pon C our t ’ s Sust ai ni ng D ef endant ’ s M ot i on t o D i s m i s s . ” Each m ot i on w as deni ed by the
c ir c u it c o u rt . T h e W h ita k e rs th e n tim e ly fi le d a “ N o tic e o f A p p e a l.” ¶ 1 3
. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a ffirm e d th e c irc u it co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f T & M F o o d s a n d K e n t. See W hitaker , 2007 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 634 a t*1. T he C our tof A ppeal s , w hi l e r ecogni zi ng th a t K e n t’s d ism iss a l w a s im p ro p e r, n o n e th e les s fo u n d th a t: [ b] eca us e the tr i al courtcorr ect l y appl i ed J& J T im bert o the cas e s ub j udi ce, an d b ec au se th e a p p li ca ti o n o f J& J T im berd id n o t im p lica te th e C o n tra c ts C lau se o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n , th is C o u rt fin d s th a t th e trial c o u rt d id noterri n gr ant i ng T & M Foods’ s R ul e 60( b) mot i on a nd di s m i s s i ng the ca s e. W i t h r e ga r d t o the tr i a l c ou r t ’ s d e c i s i on t o i nc l ud e Kenti n the d i s mi s s al , t he di s m i s s al w as pr operas a mat t erof l aw al though notpr oper l y done. [ ] Fi nal l y, 5 thi s C our tf

i nds thatthe tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n denyi ng the W hi t aker s ’ m ot i ons f

i l ed af t erthe tr i al courtgr ant ed T& M F oods ’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. Id
. at*6- 7. I n concl udi ng thatthe Sept ember17, 2002, “Sett l ementA gr eementand R el eas e”
ac ted to release K en t, an d co rresp o n d ing ly, T & M F o o d s, u n d er J& J T im ber , s ee id
. at*15, the C ou rtof A pp eal s m ade the fol l ow i ng fi nd i ng s:

### 8

the l anguage of

the f i f th par agr aph [ of

the “Sett l em entA gr eementand R e lea se ” ] cle a rly in d ica tes th a t, fo r a ll i n ten ts a n d p u rp o se s, th e W h itak e rs d id noti nt end t o pur s ue any cl ai m s agai ns tK entper s onal l y. T he l anguage of the r el eas e cl ear l y i ndi cat es thatK enti s i nt ended t o r emai n i n the l i t i gat i on f orthe s o le p u rp o s e o f th e W h ita k e rs ’ p u rs u it o f T & M F o o d s . K e n t w a s c o v e re d o n ly by the Pr ogr es s i ve pol i cy; ther ef or e, the W hi t aker s coul d notcol l ectdamages fro m a n y o th e r so u rc e in o rd e r to sa tisfy a ju d g m e n t ag a in st K e n t. A ccor di ngl y, the C our tf i nds thatthe W hi t aker s e f f ect i vel y r el eas ed K ent w h e n the y ag re e d n o t t o ex e c u te o n h is p e rso n a l as se ts be c aus e the r e w e r e no otherdam ages to be r ecov er ed
.

. . . [ T ] he C our t ’ s re vi ew of the [ E vans t on] pol i cy ati s s ue cl ear l y es t abl i s hes that T & M Foods i s the onl y i ns ur ed underthe t erm s o f the pol i cy. K enti s i n no w ay pr ot ect ed as an i ns ur ed. Id
. at*13 -15 ( em ph asi s add ed). F oll ow i ng the C ou rtof A pp eal s’ den i al of the W hit akers’

“ M o tio n fo r R e h e a ri n g ,” th is C o u rt g ra n te d th e ir“ P e titio n fo r W ri t o f C e rt io ra ri .” I S S UES ¶14
. T he p art i es pres ent the fol l ow i ng i ssues: (1) W h ethe r T & M F o o d s’ i n su ran ce p o li cy w ith E v an sto n co v ere d K en t’ s aut om obi l e. ( 2) W hetherthe t ri al courterr oneous l y appl i ed the Supr eme C our t ’ s hol di ng i n J& J T

im beras a bar t o the W hit akers’ vicari ou s l i abil i ty clai m s agai nst T & M Foods, s i nce the company’ s negl i gente m pl oyee had notbe en r el eas ed f r om l i abi l i ty. ( 3) W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng K ent , as the tr i al courtal r eady had ent er ed a de f

aul tj udgm entagai ns tK entand K entneverr eques t ed d i s mi s s a l o f

th e W h i t a k e r s ’ c l a i ms a g a i n s th i m. ( 4) W hetherthe C our tof A ppeal s err ed i n hol di ng thata ne w de ci s i on w hi ch a lters rig h ts u n d e r a p re v io u sly -e x istin g co n tra c t i s to b e a p p lied re tro a c tiv e ly

### 9

s o as t o de pr i ve the part i es of the r i ght s t o w hi ch they w er e ent i t l ed pr i ort o the i s s uance of

the new deci s i on. A N A L Y S IS I. W h eth er T & M F o o d s’ i n su ra n ce p o li cy w it h E v a n ston co v er ed K en t’s aut om obi l e. ¶1 5. T he C our tof A ppeal s found t ha tun de rthe Eva ns t on po l i c y, “ K e nti s i n n o w ay pr ot ect ed as an i ns ur ed[ ; ] ” that“K entw as cover ed onl y by the Pr ogr es s i ve pol i cy; ” and, th e re fo re , “th e W h itak e rs e ffe c tiv e ly re lea se d K e n t w h e n th e y a g re e d n o t to e x e c u te o n h is per s onal ass et s beca us e ther e w er e no otherdam ages t o be r ecov er ed
. ” W hitaker , 2007 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 634, at*13- 15 ( emphasi s added)
. The pl ai n l anguage of the Sept ember 17, 2002, “Sett l ementA gr eementand R el eas e” a nd the pr ovi s i ons of the Evanst on po l i cy contr adi cts uch a de t erm i nat i on. ¶ 1 6
. T & M F o o d s w a s th e “ N a m e d In su re d ” o n th e “ N o n -O w n e d A u to m o b ile L iab ili ty Insur ance” po l i cy w i th E van st on . T he ded ucti ble on t he p oli cy w as “ dr i ver ’s i ns ur ance or $1, 000 deduct i bl e, w hi cheve ri s gr eat er . ” ( E m phas i s a dded)
. The pol i cy def i ned “A ut o” as

“ a n o n -o w n e d m o to r v e h ic le , w h ile u s e d to d e liv e r fo o d o n b e h a lf o f t h e N a m e d In s u re d (s ).” T h e p o li cy d efine d “In su red ” a s “a n y p erso n o r 

### organiz ation qua li fying as an insured in the WHO IS INSURED se ction[ ,] ” and “WHO IS INSURED” expres sly ext ends to T&M Foods “for any co veredauto .” R e g a rd in g co v e ra g e , the p o licy p ro v id e d th a t “ fo r a ny c o v e re d

a u to y o u do n ’ to wn , the insur ance p rovi ded by this po l i cy is ex c e ss o v e r a ny o th e r c o llec tib le i ns ur ance ” and E van st on “w i l l pay all sum s t he i nsured l egall y m ustp ay as dam ages be cause
o f bo dil y i njury orpr operty damage to w hi ch this i ns ur ance appl i es , caus ed by an ac ci dentSee al s o 7 A L e e R u s s & T h o m a s S e g a lla , C o u c h o n In s u ra n c e § 1 1 0 :1 (2 0 0 5 ) ( “ [t]o 6 qual i f y as an ‘ i ns ur ed’ undera pol i cy of aut om obi l e i ns ur ance , part i es m us tei therbe the named i ns ur ed orest abl i s h t hatt hey w er e a dr i veror occ upantof a c over ed vehi cl e i nvol ved in an ac cide n t. ”). 

### 10 a n d re su lti n gfro m the
. . . u se o f a c o v e re d

a u to , in e x c e ss o f th e re ten tio n a m o u n t sta ted in th e d e c lar a tio n s.” (E m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t: [p] u rsua n t t o the a p p li ca ti o n o f th e c o m m o n law theo ry o f resp o n d ea t sup erior, a n em p lo y e r is g e n e ra lly h e ld to b e v ica rio u sly “le g a lly res p o n sib le” fo r its empl oyees ’ negl i gentdr i vi ng . . . . T hi s pr i nci ple w i l l onl y have appl i cat i on w he n the ve hi c l e i s dr i ve n d ur i ng the c ou r s e of the e mpl oy e e ’ s e mpl oyment o r w ith in the sco p e o f th e p erm issi o n g iven b y the e m p loy er. Fr anklin Count

y Mem ’l H os p. v. Mis s . Farm Bu r eau Mut . I ns. Co. , 975 So. 2d 872, 875 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ) (qu o ti n g 8 L ee R u ss & T h o m as S eg all a, C o u ch o n Insu ran ce § 1 1 1 :42 (20 0 5 )). W i thoutque s t i on, the s ubj ecta cci dentoccurr ed w hen K entw as oper at i ng hi s per s onal m ot or veh i cl e i n the cou rs e an d scope of his em ploym ent as a food-deli very dri ver f or T & M F oo ds. If th e “ lan g u a g e in a n in su ra n c e c o n tra c t is c lea r a n d u n a m b ig u o u s, th e n th e c o u rt sh o u ld
cons true i tas w r i t t en. ” Jacks on v. D aley , 739 So. 2d 1031, 1 04 1 (M i s s . 1999) ( ci t at i on
om i t t ed)
. T he “c l earand unambi guous ” l anguage of the E vans t on pol i cy pr ovi ded cove r age f orK ent ’ s a ut omobi l e , a s i twas “ a n on - owned mot orv e hi c l e , . . . u s e d t o de l i ve rf ood on behal f of the N amed I ns ur ed. ” See al s o Meye rs v. A m . S tates Ins . Co. , 914 So. 2d 669, 676 ( M i s s . 2005) ( “M ay and Co. ’ s aut om obi l e i ns ur ance pol i cy expl i ci t l y pr ovi des cover age f or M eyers’ veh i cl e on i t s desi gn ati o n p ag e an d als o m akes cl ear that coverage o f M eyers’
v eh icl e is p art of the co n side rati o n for w h ich M ay an d C o . p a id its insu ran ce p rem ium
. ”). M or eover , “aut om obi l e l i abi l i ty cover age f ol l ow s the vehi cl e, notthe per s on . . . . ” 12 Lee R us s & T hom as Sega l l a, Couch on I ns ur ance § 169: 109 ( 2005) )
. A ccor di ngl y, the Evanst on 6

### 11

pol i cy pr ovi ded cove r age f or“damages beca us e of bodi l y i nj ury . . . c aus ed by a n acc i dent
a n d re su lti n g fro m th e u s e o f [K e n t’s] co v e re d a u to [.] ” K e n t’s a u to m o b ile w a s e x p re ss ly
c o v e re d u n d e r th e fo u r c o rn e rs o f th e E v a n sto n p o licy . In th e e v e n t th a t th e first re lea se is
s etas i de, thi s avenue of r ecove r y f

orthe W hi t aker s w oul d notbe f or ecl os ed. T he C our tof A ppeal s err ed i n concl udi ng t hat“t her e w er e no otherdamages t o be r ecove r ed. ” W hitaker , 2007 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 634, at*13- 15. T he conc l us i on thatthe W hi t aker s ef f ect i vel y had
re le a s e d K e n t i n t h e S e p te m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 2 , R e le a s e , s ee id
. , i s contr adict ed b y the exp res s ter m s o f th a t in stru m e n t. II. W h eth er th e tr ial co u rt e rr o n e o u sly a p p li ed th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s hol di ng i n J& J T

im bera s a b a r t o t h e W h i t a k e r s ’ v i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i t y c l a i ms aga i nst T & M F oods, s i nce t he com pany’s negl i gent em pl oyee had not been rel eas ed f

rom l i abi l i t y. F i rst R el ease ¶1 7 . U n d er the fi rst release , the W h it ak ers release d K en t from li ab il ity , ab sen t p ro o f to
sa tisfy tra d iti o n a l p rin c ip les fo r se tti n g a sid e a re lea se . “E v e ry p e rso n m u st b e p re su m e d to know t he l a w , a nd i n [ the ] a bs e nc e o f s ome mi s r e pr e s e nt a t i on , o ri l l e ga l c on c e a l mentof f act s , the per s on musta bi de the cons equenc es of hi s contr act s and ac t i ons . ” R oyerHom es of Mis s . , I nc. v. ChandeleurHom es, I nc. , 857 So. 2d 748, 754 ( M i s s . 2003) ( quot i ng Far r agut

v. Mas s ey , 6 1 2 S o . 2 d 3 2 5 , 3 2 9 (M iss
. 1 9 9 2 )). T h u s, the W h itak e rs w ill h a v e to pr ovi de s uf

f i ci entev i den ce t o s uppor tthei rcl ai m s of ei therm utual m i s t ake,
m is re p re s e n ta tio n , c o n c e a lm e n t, o r f ra u d to in v a lid a te th e fi rs t r e le a s e . See W ar nerv. W arner , 1 7 5 M iss. 4 7 6 , 4 7 9 (19 3 6 ). S h o u ld the tr ial co u rtb e sa ti sfi ed that the W h it ak ers have pr ovi ded s uf

f i ci entevi dence t o r ai s e f actual ques t i ons r egar di ng m utual m i st ake or

### 12

“f r aud, m i s r epr es ent at i on, adhes i on orotheri nequi t i es [ , ] then the ca s e pr oper l y goes t o t he j ury orf actf i nder
. ” R oyerHom es , 857 So. 2d at757. Seco ndR el ease ¶18. N o anal ys i s of

the s econd r el eas e r egar di ng K enti s r equi r ed, s houl d i tbe det erm i ned th a t K e n t w a s re le a s e d in 2 0 0 0 . T h e s e c o n d re le a s e c re a te d n o ri g h ts a g a in s t K e n t, a
nons i gnat ory. T he l anguage of the Sept ember17, 2002, “Sett l ementA gr eem ent and R el eas e” i s cl ear l y di s t i ngui s habl e f r om the r el ease co ns i der ed i n J& J T im ber
. T he J

&J T im ber i nst rum ent provided that “[ a] s partof a set t l em ent the p l ai nti ff s r el eas ed

the dr i ver
o f th e l o g tru c k f

r o m a lll i abi l i ty a n d

a g r e e d t o i n d e mn i

f y h i m a g a i n s tth i r d

-

p a r t y c la i ms .” J& J T im ber , 932 So. 2d at2 ( emphasi s added)
. Speci f i cal l y, the “Recei pt , R el ease and I ndemni ty A gr eement ” i dent i f i ed the dr i veramong t he “ r el eas ed part i es ” and pr ovi ded “[ [ t ] he w r ongf

ul death benef

i ci ar i es ]
. . . do her eby r el eas e, acqui tand f or eve rdis char

ge , all of the s ai d r el eas ed

part i es , col l ect i vel y and i ndi vi dual l y, f r om any and a l l act i ons and/ or
c a u se s o f a c tio n . . . [res u lti n g ] fro m in ju rie s a n d /o r d a m a g e s w e re c e iv e d
. . . [i n th e in c id e n t]

. . . . ” Id
. (em p h asis ad d ed ). A c c o rdin g ly, th e im p o rto f J& J T im berw as “w hether , as a
m att erof l aw , the r el eas e of

a t or t f eas oral s o s erves as a r el eas e of the tor t f eas or ’s em

pl oyer fro m cla im s o

f vic a rio u s lia b ili ty , d e sp ite a n a ttem p t b y th e re lea so r to p re se rv e th e rig h t to pur s ue suc h cl ai m s . ” Id
. a t3 ( emphasi s a dded)
. T hi s Courtc oncl uded that“the r el eas e of
a n egl i gentempl oyee, i n any capaci ty, bar s al l cl ai m s of vi car i ous l i abi l i ty agai ns tt he empl oyer , des pi t e a r es ervat i on of r i ght s . ” Id
. at 8 (e m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶19. B y contr as t , the Sept ember 17, 2002, “Sett l ement A gr eement and R el eas e” r el eas ed onl y one s peci f

i c party t o the l i t i gat i on, Pr ogr es s i ve. I tdi d notr el eas e the dr i verorthe

### 13

d riv e r’s e m p lo y e r. R e g a rd in g K e n t, th e W h itak e rs a g re e d o n ly “th a t i n m a k in g a n y p u rsu it of thei rcl ai m w i th r es pectt o t he aut om obi l e acc i den t , [ the W hi t aker s ] w i l l nots eek
exec ut i on agai ns tper s onal a s s et s of [ K ent ]
. . . . ” K ent , the empl oyee, w as notr el eas ed, but
ra th e r w a s th e b e n e fic iar y o f a n a g re e m e n t n o t to lev y a p re su m e d ju d g m e n t 

### again st his perso nal assets. Seeals o Bu rt v. Du ckw orth , 206 So. 2d 850, 853 ( Mis s. 1968) ( “i t a ppears that Mrs. Burt di d not e xec utea r el ea seto Campbe lland Inte rnati onalPape r Com pany although s he di d ent er

int o an a gre em ent

not t o suethe m, re taining any right s that shehad aga ins t t he other parti es involved. ”)
. III. W het her t he t ri al court err ed i n di s m i s s i ng K ent , as t he t ri al court al ready had ent ere d a defaul t j udgm ent agai nst K ent and K ent never r e q u e s t e d d i s mi s s a l o f t h e W h i t a k e r s ’ c l a i ms a g a i n s t h i m. 

### ¶20. Wh ile the C ourt of Appea ls c orr ectly recog nizedthat th e trial court erred in dis mi ss ing Ke nt, i t af

firm ed thedi sm is sa l of Ke nt f or other re as ons. Acc ording to t

he Cour t of App eals: [i ] n thi s c as e . . . eve n if theCourt wer e to reve rs e the porti on of the order on theRule60(b) motion di smissing Kent on thegroundsthat t he tri alcourt im prope rly grante d re li ef

to Ke nt, suc h a r

uling would bepointle ss . Thetria l court a ppar ently grant ed the re li ef to Ke nt in re cogni ti on of the f ac t t hat the def ault j udgme nt wa s voi d ab initio in l ight of the J&J Tim ber

case. As a matter of law , the d ate that th e Wh itakers entered into th e release with Progres si ve wa s the datethat Ke nt e ff ec tively was dism is se d from t he litigatio n w ith p rejud ice an dth e date th at T& M F oo ds b ecame entitledto summaryjud gment as a matter of law . Th e Wh itakers entered into th at release with Progres si ve on Sep temb er 17 , 20 02. The default j udgme nt wa s not ent er ed untilMay 26, 2006. Whit aker , 2007 Mi ss . App. LEXIS 634, at *17 ( em phas is adde d). This Court ’s re soluti on of the other

is sue s rai se d her ein re quires re ver sa l of thetria l c ourt ’s rul ing.

### 14

I V . W het her t he C ou rt of A ppeal s err ed i n hol di ng t hat a new deci s i on w hi ch al t ers ri ght s und er a previ ousl y- exi s t i ng cont ract i s t o be appl i ed ret roact i vel y s o as t o depri ve t he part i es of t he ri ght s t o w hi ch t hey w ere e nt i t l e d pr i or t o t he i s s uanc e of t he ne w dec i s i on. ¶ 2 1
. T h is q u e s tio n o f la w is r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . See Stephens v. E quitable Li f e A s s urance S o c’y , 8 5 0 S o . 2 d 7 8 , 8 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ); G eterv. G ar dner , 70 2 S o . 2d 11 8 , 11 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). ¶22. T & M F oods pr es ent ed J& J T im bert o the tr i al c our ton the day of tr i al , M ay 8, 2006, f ourdays af

t erthe dec i s i on w as handed dow n by thi s Court
. T he C our tof A ppeal s deemed the retroa cti v e a p p li ca ti o n o f J& J T im berper m i s s i bl e, fi ndi ng t he C ontr act s C l aus e of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on of 1890 ( s ee M issi ssipp i C o n sti tuti o n , arti cle 3 , S ec ti o n 1 6 ), i nappl i cabl e. Speci f

i cal l y, the C our tof

A ppeal s hel d: i n or derf ora pa r ty t o i nvoke thi s pr ovi s i on of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on, the cont r a c ta ti s s ue mus tha ve be e n mad e un de rthe a utho r i ty o f a s t a tut e tha t af f ect s the abi l i ty of

the part i es t o enf

or ce that contr act , ei therbeca us e the s t atut e has been amended orre peal ed.
. . . I n t hi s cas e, t he W hi t aker s di d not re ly o n a n y sta tu to ry a u th o rity w h e n th e y e n ter e d in to th e c o n tra c t w ith Pr ogr es s i ve. Ins t ead, they ent er ed i nt o the contr act bas ed upon pr i orj udi ci al decis i on s r egar di ng the r el eas e of a t or t f eas ori n a vi car i ous l i abi l i ty s i tuat i on. A ccor di ngl y, the contr act s cl aus e of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on i s not appl i cabl e. W hitaker , 2 0 0 7 M iss . A p p . L E X IS 6 3 4 a t * 9 ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h is c o n c lu sio n is
e rr o n e o u s a s a ma t t e ro f l a w. ¶23. A s a gene r al rul e, “al l j udi ci al deci s i ons ap ply retroact i vely un l ess the C our t has
s peci f i cal l y s t at ed t he rul i ng i s pr os pect i ve. ” Cle v e land v. Mann , 94 2 S o. 2d 10 8, 11 3 (M i ss. 2006) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. Fur therm or e, “new l y enunci at ed rul es of l aw ar e appl i ed
r etr oact i vel y t o cas es thatar e pendi ng tr i al orthatar e on appe al , and notf i nal atthe t i m e of the enunc i at i on. ” T

h ompson v. Cit

y of V i cksbu rg , 8 1 3 S o . 2 d 7 1 7 , 7 2 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ).

### 15

¶24
. H ow ever, the C on tract s C l ause of the M i ssi ssi pp i C on st i tuti on p rov ides , “[ e] x p ost fa c to la w s , o r la w s im

p a irin gthe o b lig a tio n o f co n tra c ts , sh a ll n o t b e p a ss e d .” M iss . C o n st.
art . 3, § 16 ( emphasi s a dded)
. W e have s t at ed that“ [ t ] he C ons t i tut i on de ni es t o the s t at es t he p o w e r to e n a c t an y law im p a irin g th e o b lig a tio n s o f c o n tra c ts. U .S . C o n st. A rt.1 , § 1 0 , cl. 1 ; see al so M i s s . C ons t . A r t . 3, § 16 ( 1890)
. ” Col lierv. Shell

O il Co. , 534 So. 2d 1015, 1018 ( M i s s . 1988) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T hi s C our thas f ur therhel d thatthe s ame cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i ons r equi r e that“[ i ] f a contr actw hen made w as val i d undert he l aw s of the s t at e as then expounde d and admi ni s t er ed i n i t s cour t s of j us t i ce, ‘i t s val i di ty and obl i gat i on cannot b e im p a ir e d b y a n y s u b s e q u e n t a c tio n o f l e g is la tio n , or decis i on of i t s cou rt s alt er i ng the
cons tr uct i on of

the law . ’ ” W

is cons in L um berCo. v. State of Mis s is s i ppi , 97 M i s s . 571, 598, 5 4 S o . 2 4 7 , 2 4 9 -5 0 (1 9 1 0 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See al s o Poole v. Brunt , 338 So. 2d 991, 995 (M iss. 19 7 6 ); Mis s . S ta te Tax Co mm ’n v. Br o wn , 188 M i s s . 483, 509, 193 So. 794, 802 (1940) ( “[ t ] hi s C our thas gi ven pr ot ect i on t o ci t i zens f r om the ef

f ectof overrul i ng cas es, h o l d i n g th a ttr a n s a c t i o n s h a d o rd o n e u n d e ra c o n s tru c t i o n ma k i n g th e a c tv a l i d a tth e t i me i tw as done cont i nue l egal , al though af t erw ar ds a cha nge of

deci s i on w as m ade by the C o u rt.”); Y

a z o o & Mis s . V

a l le y R . R . Co . v. A da ms , 81 M i s s . 90, 116, 32 So. 937, 946 ( 1902) (“[ t ] he co nst i tuti on al barr i er t o l egis l at i on im pair i ng the obli gati on of contr act s appli es al so t o deci s i ons al t er i ng the l aw , . . . s o as t o af f ectthe obl i gat i ons of e xi s t i ng contr act s m ade on th e fa ith o f th e e a rlier a d ju d ica tio n s.” ); O h io L ife I n s. a n d T ru st C o . v. D eB o lt , 57 U . S. 416, 432, 14 L . E d. 997, 1004 ( 1854) (“ the sound and true rul e i s , t hati f the contr actw hen made
w a s v a lid b y th e law s o f th e S tate , as th e n e x p o u n d e d b y a ll th e d e p a rtm e n ts o f its governm ent , and ad m i ni s t er ed i n i t s court s of j us t i ce, i t s val i di ty and obl i gat i on cannotbe

### 16

im p a ir e d b y a n y s u b s e q u e n t a c t o f t h e le g is la tu re o f t h e S ta te , o r d e c isio n o f i ts c o u rts , a lterin g th e c o n stru c tio n o f th e law .”) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ). In su p p o rt o f th is p o sitio n , this C our ts t at ed i n 1915: [t] h e a rg u m e n t o n b e h a lf o f th e sta te is th a t w h e n a d e c is io n is o v e rru led , in l egal cont empl at i on, the deci s i on neverexi s t ed. T hi s ar gum enthas be en met an d sati sfac tori ly an sw ere d in the ad jud icated c ase s. Itis a lso sa id tha t eve ry m an i s p r e s umed t o kn ow t he l a w , a nd n o on e c a n t a ke
. . . s he l t erunderan err oneous deci si on o f

the hi ghes tcourt . T hi s ar gum enti s , i n ouropi ni on, m anif est l y faul ty. If

the legal m axim h as an y a pp l i cat i on t o a case li ke thi s, and i s c ontr ol l i ng, the maxi m m us tbe amended t o r ead thus : “I gnor ance of the l aw excus es no m an, exce ptm em ber s of the s upr eme j udi ci al tr i bunal of the s ta te .” State v. Longino , 1 0 9 M iss. 1 2 5 , 1 3 5 , 6 7 S o . 9 0 2 , 9 0 4 (19 1 5 ). ¶2 5 . W h en the 2 0 0 0 R elea se a n d th e 2 0 0 2 “ S e ttl e m e n t A g ree m en t and R elea se” w ere
e x e c u te d , W

.J . R u ny o n & S o n , In c . v. D a v is , 60 5 S o. 2d 38 ( M i s s . 1992) , w as the
co n tr o ll ing au tho ri ty, pro v iding tha t th e release o f an a g en t ha s n o e ffect o n the p ri n cipa l’ s
v ica rio u s lia b ility
. See id
. at 43
. T h e C o u rto f A p p ea ls r ec o g n ized that the W h it ak ers “e n tered into the co n tr ac t bas ed u p o n p ri o r j u d ici al de cisi o n s re g a rd ing the re lease o f a t or t f eas ori n a vi car i ous l i abi l i ty s i tuat i on. ” W hitaker , 2007 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 634, at*9. N o t u n til J& J T

im berw a s h a n d e d d o w n o n M a y 4 , 2 0 0 6 , d id th is C o u rt c o n c lu d e th a t “ [t]o the e x tent th a t R u nyon hol ds thata vi car i ous l i abi l i ty cl ai m can be m ai nt ai ned aga i ns tt he empl oyera f

t erthe empl oyee i s r el eas ed, w i thoutan al l egat i on of i ndepende ntnegl i gence by the empl oyer , thatcas e i s overrul ed. ” J& J T im ber , 9 3 2 S o . 2 d a t 6 -7 . H o w e v e r, W isc o n sin L um beri s a utho r i ty f

orthe l e ga l p r op os i t i on tha tthe “ va l i di ty a nd o bl i ga t i on” of any contr actcannotbe “i m pai r ed by any” M i s s i s s i ppi cour tdeci s i on “al t er i ng t he cons truct i on of the l aw . ” W

is cons in L um ber , 5 4 S o. at 249 -50 (ci t at i on s om i t t ed). A s J& J T im berw as

### Th e pro per s tandard t o e valuat e ei the r re le as e is the law in pl ac e at the timeof its 7 

### exe cution. 17 det erm i ned t o have thatef f ect , i ts houl d nothave be en appl i ed r etr oact i vel y t o e i therr el eas e. 7 A ny ho l ding otherw i se f un dam ental l y err s i n l i m i t i ng app l i cabil i ty o f the C on tract s C l ause
o f t h e M is s is s ip p i C o n s titu tio n to s ta tu to ry a m e n d m e n ts a n d re p e a ls
. See W hitaker , 2007 M i s s . A pp. LE X I S 634, a t*9. Such a c oncl us i on i s nots uppor t ed by ourw el l -devel oped
c a se law to th e co n tra ry . See par agr aph 24 supra . A ccor di ngl y, thi s C our tconcl udes t hat the C ontr act s C l aus e of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on pr ohi bi t s the r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of J& J T im bert o ei therr el eas e. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 6
. B a se d u p o n th e a fo re m e n tio n e d a n a ly sis , th is C o u rt re v e rse s th e ju d g m e n ts o f b o th th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d th e C irc u it C o u rt o f L e e C o u n ty a n d re m a n d s th is c a se to th e c irc u it
c o u rt fo r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is o p in io n . S u c h p ro c e e d in g s n e c e ss a rily sh a ll
re q u ir e th e d e te rm in a tio n o f t h e v a lid ity , v e lnon , o f the f i r s tr el eas e, ut i l i zi ng the l egal
s t andar ds i n ef

f ectatthe t i m e of

i t s exec ut i on. ¶27. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W A L L E R , C .J ., D I C K I N S O N , L A M A R , K I T C H E N S , A N D P I E R C E , J J ., CONCUR. GRAVE S , P . J . , CONCURS I N RE S UL T ONL Y. CARL S ON, P . J . , AND CH AN DL E R, J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .