### I N T HE SU PREM E C OU RT OF MI SS I SS I PP I NO . 20 11 - CT - 00 89 6- SC T MA CH ON LYO NS
v. DI RE CT GE NE RA L I NS UR AN CE CO MP ANY OF MI SS I SS I PP I ON WRI T O F C ER TI OR ARI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/27/2011 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JAMES LAMAR ROBERTS, JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MONROE COUNTY CIRCUI T COURT AT TO RN EYFO R A PP EL LA NT : LA

NC E L
. ST EV EN S AT TO RN EY S F OR

AP PE LL EE : WA LKER RE EC E G I BS ON MICHAEL WAYNE BAXTER ANDY LOWRY NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVI L - INSURANCE DI SP OS I TI ON : TH E JUD GM EN T O F T HE CO URT O F AP PE AL S I S A FF I RM ED
. TH E JUD GM EN T OF THE MONROE COUNTY CIRCUI T COURT IS REVERSED AND THE CASE I S REMANDED - 02/ 13/2014 MO TI ONFO R REH EA RINGFI LE D: MA ND AT E I SS UE D: EN BA NC . DICKI NSON, PRESI DING JUSTI CE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Aninsuran ce company den ied an injured passen ger’s perso nal-in juryclaim against the dri ver bec aus e i ts poli cy e xcluded any cove ra ge for the pe rs on who was dri ving, and who was also the to rtfeasor. T he circu it court gran ted the insuranc e comp anysummaryjud gmen t. But be ca use – to t he e xte nt of st at

utorily r equi re d l ia

bil it y cove ra ge – the pol ic y exc lus ion vio lates Mississip pi law , we rev erse in p art.Mis s. Co de Ann. § 6 3-1 5-4 3 (Rev . 2 01 3). 1 

### 2

FA CT S A ND PR OC ED UR AL HI ST ORY ¶2. Mac hon Lyons s uf f e r e d s e ve r e i nj uri e s i n an s i ng l e - c ar aut om ob i l e a c c i de nt. The
ac ci dent occ urr ed whe n a Che vrol et Lumi na ope rate d byRoderic k Holl iday -- in whi ch Lyons wa s a pas se nger

- - l ef t the r oad and col li ded wi th a tr ee . As a r es ult , Lyons obta ine d a de fa ult judgm ent

of $72, 500 aga ins t Hol li day. ¶3. Holl ida

y’s mot her , Da is y Lang, insured th e Ch evro let Lumina t hrough Dire ct Gene ra l Insurance C omp anyof M ississipp i. Lan g’s p olicyinclu deda pro visi onspecifically
exc lud i ngHo l l i day f

r om anyc ov e r a ge un de r

the po l i c y. Ac c or di ng l y, Di r e c t de ni ed
cov erage fo r the ju dg ment. ¶4. Ly on s sou gh t a declarato ry jud gmen t, askin g the Circu it Co urt of Mo nro e Co un ty to hold t hat Lang’s polic y cove re d the judgm ent aga ins t Hol li day. Lyons a cknowl edge d the poli cy e xclusion , but argue d that Lang’s poli cy c over ed the j udgme nt a gai nst Holl iday bec aus e Mi ss is sippi l aw re quire s m i ni mum - l i a bi l it y cove ra ge f

or a llper mi ss ive dri ver s, and 1 

### bec aus e Lang’s ins urance card – pr ovide d to Lang by Dir ec t Ge ner alfor use as evi denc e of
cov erage –failed to mentio n any p ermissive-driver ex clusio ns. T his, acco rdin g to Ly on s,
cr eate d an ambi guit

y that s hould be re sol ved i n favor of the inj ure d party. ¶5. The c ir cui t c ourt

grante d s umm ar

y j udgme nt in favor of Dir ec t, f indi ng that t

he poli cy cl earl y and s pec if

ic al ly e xcluded c over age of Hol li day. Lyons a ppea le d.L

y o n sv . D ire c t G

en . I n s. C o. o f M iss. , No. 2011-CA-00896-COA, 2012 WL 6117874 2 (Mi ss. Ct . App . D ec. 11 , 2 01 3). Mis s. Co de Ann. § 6 3-1 5-4 3(2 )(b ) (Rev . 2 01 3). 3 Lyons , 2012 WL 6117874, at *3. 4 

### 3 ¶6. The Mis si ss ippi Co urt of Appea ls re ver se d, fi nding that Mis si ss ippi Code Se ct ion 2 

### 63-15- 4(2) (a) r equi re s l ia bil it y ins urance for

al l ve hic le s ope rate d in Mi ssi ss ippiand that Mis si ss ippiCode Se ct ion 63- 15-43 r equi re s that the li abi li ty i nsur ance pol ic y “[ s] hal l pay on beha lf of the name d ins ure d and any other per son, as ins ure d, us ing any suc h mot or veh icle or mo tor v ehicles w ith the exp ress or implied p ermissionof su ch n amed in sured
. . . .” Acco rdin gly , the court held that an insured’s po licy must cov er all permissiv e driv ers, 3


### re ndering the name d-drive r exc lus ion void up t o the mi nim um c over age li mi ts . Although 4 

### the C ourt of Ap peals reachedthe right result, it cited as its autho rity the inco rrect statute, so we gr ant ed certiora ri
. AN AL YS IS ¶ 7. I n i t s pe t i t i onfor certiora ri , Direct argu es that the Co urt of Ap peals erred b ecause Sectio n 6 3-1 5-4 3 d oes n ote stab lish th e requ irements fo r minimum mand atoryliability
cov erage. R ather, D irect argu es th at S ection6 3-1 5-3 (j) p rov ides the minimum requ irements for mand atory l ia

bil it y ins urance and, bec aus e that se ct ion l ac ks any re quir em ent for
cov erage o f all permissiv e driv ers, its n amed-driver ex clusio n –wh ich unamb igu ou sly
e xc lud e s Ho l l i day a s ac ov e r e d dr i ve r – i s va l i d und e r

Mi s s i s s ipp i l aw. ¶8. Mississip pi law requ ires liability insurance for every moto r veh icle op erated w ithin the st at e:Mis s. Co de Ann. § 6 3-1 5-4 (2) (a) (R ev . 2 01 3). 5Lyons , 2012 WL 6117874, at *1. 6 Mis s. Co de Ann. § 6 3-1 5-4 (2) (a) (R ev . 2 01 3). 7 Mis s. Co de Ann. § 6 3-1 5-3 (j) (R ev . 2 01 3). 8 Mis s. Co de Ann. § 6 3-1 5-4 3(1 ) (Rev . 2 01 3). 9 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Met tetal , 5 34 So . 2 d 1 89 , 1 90 (Mi ss. 19 88 ). 10 Id. at 192. 11 

### 4 Ever y mot or veh ic le oper at ed i n thi s s tate sha llhave an i nsur anc e c ar d maintain ed inthe mo tor v ehicle as p roo f of liab ility in surance th at is in com pli anc e wi th t

he l ia bil it y li mi ts re quir ed by Se ct ion 63- 15 -3(j). The ins ure d parti es sha llbe re spons ibl e for m ai nta ini ng the i nsur anc e c ar d in e ac h mot or ve hic le
. 5 

### But t he Co ur t of Ap pe a l s e rr e d b y f

i nd i ngthat

“ [ t ] he r e qu i r e m e nt s f

or the s e m andatory li abi li ty i nsur anc e pol ic ie s are se t out in s ec ti on 63-15- 43 of

the Mis si ss ippiCode .” Sec ti on 6 

### 63 -15 -4 specificallyp rov ides that the insurance po licy must comp ly w ith th e requ irements of Se ct ion 63- 15-3(

j) , whic h makes no re fe re nce to Se ct ion 63- 15-43. 7 8 

### ¶9. Further , Sec ti on 63-15- 43 appl ie s by it s te rm s to “an owner ’s or an oper at or’ s pol ic y of l i abi l i ty i ns ur anc e , c e rt i f i e d a s pr ov i de d i n S e c t i on63
- 15
- 39 or S e c t i on6 3- 15
- 41
. ” We 9 

### prev iou sly h ave ad dressedth e p recise issue o f wh ether S ection63 -15 -43 app lies “to all aut omobi le li abi li ty i nsur anc e pol ic ie s i ss ued i n the St at e, or onl y to t hose ce rt if

ie d as proof of fin ancial resp on sibility .” 10 

### ¶10. Pri or to 20 01 , Mississ ippi law cont ai ned no gene ra l re quir em ent that the owner or oper at or of

a ve hic le carr

y li abi li ty i nsur anc e. Ins te ad, Mis sissippi law re quir ed that the 11 

### Departme nt of

Publi c Sa fe ty s uspe nd al l a utom obil e r egi strati ons of an owne r – or

theId. (ci tin g M iss . C od e Ann . § 63 -15 -11 (repe ale d M arc h 2 0, 20 13 )). 12Id. (qu oti ngMis s. Co de Ann. § 6 3-1 5-3 9). 13Id. at 190. 14 Id. 15Id. at 193. 16 Mis s. Co de Ann. § 6 3-1 5-1 1 (r ep eal ed March20 , 2 01 3). 17 Mis s. Co de Ann. § 6 3-1 5-4 (2) (a) (R ev . 2 01 3). 18 

### 5 driv er’s li ce nse of an oper at or – of any ve hic le invol ved i n an a cc ide nt wi thout li ability ins urance , unl es s the owne r or op erator could produc e pr oof of fut ure fi nanc ia l
re spons ibi li ty by “provi ding a wri tt en ce rt if ic at e of an ins urance com pany ‘ ce rt if

ying t hat 12 

### there is ineffect a moto r veh ic le l iab il itypo licy fo r the b enefit o f the p ersonrequ ired to fur nis h proof

of f inanci alre spons ibi li ty. ’” 13 

### ¶11. When the i nsur ed part y in Met tetal voluntari ly obtaine d his li abi li ty i nsur anc e poli cy,
unre late d to any acc ide nt or proof of futur e fi nanc ia l re spons ibi li ty, we had t o det er mi ne 14 

### wh ether anexclu sioncon tainedin the v oluntarilyob tainedpo licy –wh ich co nflictedwith the requiremen ts of S ection63 -15 -43 – co uldbe en forced
. We held that it couldbecau se 15 

### “it is clear fro m th e lan gu age of Subsectio n (1) th at the p rov ision s of § 63 -15 -43 app ly o nly to p olicies certifiedas pro of o f finan cial respo nsib ility.” 16 

### ¶12. Sinc e the Met

tetal dec is ion, the Legi sl ature has repea le d the re quirem ent for proof of f utur e financ ia l re spons ibi li ty fol lowi ng an a cc ide nt, and ha s a dopte d a r equi re me nt t hat 17 

### al l ve hic le s ope rate d within t he St at e have l ia

bil it y ins urance . 18Mis s. Co de Ann. § 6 3-1 5-4 3(1 ) (Rev . 2 01 3). 19 Mis s. Co de Ann. § 6 3-1 5-4 (2) (b) (R ev . 2 01 3). 20 Mis s. Co de Ann. § 6 3-1 5-4 (2) (a) (R ev . 2 01 3) ( em ph asi s adde d). 21 

### 6 ¶ 13
. Li ke wi s e , i n the c a s e be f or e us t od ay, Se c t i on 63
- 15
- 43 i s i na ppli cable by i t s own language bec aus e, by it s te rm s, i t appl ie s only t o poli ci es ce rt if ie d under Sec ti ons 63- 15-39 and63 -15 -41
. Becau se neith er of th e parties b efore u s tod ay su gg es ts th at the liab ility 19 

### poli cy in the pres ent

cas e is one ce rt if

ie d under Sec ti ons 63- 15-39 and 63-15- 41, the Cour t of Appe al s e rr ed by a

pplyi ng the re quir em ent s of Sec ti on 63-15- 43. ¶14. But our

ana lys is d oes no t co nclu de here. S ect ion 63- 15-4( 2)(b) pr ovide s that an “insurance co mpany issu ing a po licy o f moto r veh icle liabilityinsurance as requiredbythis
se ct ion s hal l f

urni sh t o the ins ure d an i nsur anc e c ar d for ea ch m otor

vehi cl e . . . . ” Her e, 20 

### the par ti es st ipul at ed that the i nsur anc e card Dir ec t is sue d t o Da is y Lang wa s her evi denc e of i nsur anc e c over age . Couns elf or Dir ec t conf

ir me d at ora l argume nt t

hat thi s c over age was the cove ra ge r equi re d by Mis si ss ippist at ute . ¶15. For a

utom obil es oper at ed i n Mis si ssipp i, S ection6 3-1 5-4 (2)(a) requ ires that an ins urance card be “m ai nta ine d in t he m otor veh icle ,” and that

the ins urance card s er

ve a s “pro of o f liabilityinsurance th at is in c ompli ance wit h the li mit s required by Sec tion 63-15- 3(j) .” This st at

ute – when r ea d toge the r wi th Se ct ion 63- 15-4( 2)(b), whic h re quir es the 21 

### ins urance com

pany t o is sue the card – l eaves no doub t th at aninsur er may not i ss ue an ins urance card f

or us e a s pr oof of

cove ra ge unl es s the pol ic y com pli es with mi nim

um statuto ry requiremen ts. An d if the po licy pro vid es no liab ility co verag e for certaindriv ers, it does not c omply.Miss. Code Ann. § 63-15-4(2) (a) (Rev. 2013) 22 Miss. Code Ann. § 63-15-3(j ) (Rev. 2013) 23 

### 7 ¶16
. Acco rdin gly , we hold that Daisy Lang ’s Direct General policy did no t comp ly w ith the fo llow ing minimum-liabilitycov erage requiremen ts

. . . . i n the am ount of

Twenty-f ive Thousand Doll ar s ( $25,000. 00) be ca use of bodily inj ury t o or de ath of one (1) pers on in any one (1) acc ide nt, and subj ec t to s ai d li mi t f

or one (1) per son, in t

he amount

of FiftyT ho usand Doll ar s ($50, 000.00) bec aus e of

bodily inj ury t o or de ath of two (2) or m ore per sons in any one ( 1) a cc ide nt, and i n the amount of Twe nty- fi ve Thous and Dol lars ($25, 000.00) because of inj ury t o or de struc ti on of pr operty of othe rs in any on e (1) accid ent. 22 

### ¶ 17
. Th i s m and at or

y l i abi l i ty i ns ur anc e r e qu i r e m e nt pe rt a i ns t o ve hi c le s, not owner s or op erators. S aid d ifferently , everyveh icle op erated w ithinthis S tate must hav e the statuto rily
re quir ed m ini mum -c over age re quir em ent s of $25,000 for inj ury to one pe rs on, $50, 000 for inj ury t o two or

mor e pe ople , and $25,000 fo r p rop erty dama ge. A li abi li ty pol ic y that 23 

### purports to ex clud e that

cove ra ge f

or c erta in drive rs fa il s t o com ply wi th t

he s tatut ory
mandat e. ¶18. Th e dissent la

bel s as “ mys te ri ous” our belief th at exclu sion s to th e statuto rily
mandat ed m ini mum -l ia

bil it y li mi ts mus t com e f

rom – or be authori ze d by – the Legi sl at ure . But we fi nd com

pel li ng the fa ct

that t he Le gis lature p assed a lawfulst at ute that unequi voca lly re quir es autom obil es to mai nta in mi nim um- li abi li ty cove ra ge i n the am ount of $25 ,00 0. Becau se the statute neith er inclu des no r auth orizes exclu sion s, we must ho ld that the e xc lus i onat

i s s ue i n thi s c a s e d oe s n ot a pp l y t o the f

i r s t $ 25 , 00 0 of

l i abi l i ty. The Legi sl at ure poss es se s the s ole power to a uthoriz e s uch exc lus ions , and aut omobi le ins ure rs
ar e not fr eeto escape the statutorilyrequ ired min imum-liab ility co verag e simplybyinserting

### 8

an ex clusio n o f their ch oice –no matter ho w w ell-reason ed – into their p olicies. A rguments for ex ceptio ns to clear statuto ry requiremen ts sho uldbe mad e to th e Leg islature, n ot th is Co urt. ¶19
. Th e dissen t also states th at “ p a r t i e s a r e f r e e t o a g r e e t o wh a t e v e r c o n t r a c tu a l t e r ms t hey w i s h as l ong as t he t er m s ar e notpr ohi bi t ed. 

### ” We agr ee . The parties indee d may negot iate – and a

utom obil e i nsur er s m ay i nclude – e xclusi ons from cover age , s o long a s thos e e xclusi ons do not

em as cul at e the s tatut ori ly r equi re d mi nim um c overage. In ot

her words , our

opini on does not inva li dat e the e xclusi on at is sue today for

am ounts whic h exceedthe statutorilyrequ ired min imum. ¶20. The di ss ent ’s conc er n appe ar s f

ocus ed on other

commonpl ac e e xclusi ons that are not at is sue her e. The e ss enc e of the di ss ent ’s posi ti on is , i f a utom obil e i nsur er s m ay e xclude the min imum statutorycov erage fo r inten tion al acts, wh y n ot for certain drivers? W hile th is issue is n ot b efore u s, it do es sho wcase a p rob lem that su gg ests add ition al analy sis. ¶21
. The di ss ent

s ug ge s t s that

– s o l on g a s a

ut om ob i l e i ns ur e rs provi de the mi nimum
s t at ut or y c ov e r a ge – the y ar e fr e e to ex c lud e fr om that c ov e r a ge anya c t s the y c ho os e . We fi nd to be a non se quitur the not i onthat

i ns ur anc e c om

pani e s ar e f

r e e t o i ns e rt

the i r own
exc ept ions to m ini mum

re quir em ent s. Require me nts ar e j ust that – requ iremen ts– and nothi ng in t

he s tatut e s uggests that

exc ept ions exi st , or

that i nsur anc e c ompanie s are authori ze d to i nclude them in t hei r pol ic ie s. Inde ed, this unbri dle d fr ee dom woul d le ave aut omobi le ins ure rs fr ee to e xclude c overage fo r accident s i n whic h the ir ins ure ds we re exceed ing the sp eed limit o r un der th e influ ence o f alcoh ol.Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Payne , 6 03 So . 2 d 3 43 , 3 44 (Mi ss. 19 92 ). 24 Id. at 346, 347. 25 

### 9 ¶22
. We hav e reached a similar con clusio n in the con text of un insured-mo torist b enefits. Paki ta Payne obta ine d an uni nsur ed m otoris t pol ic y whic h spe ci fi cally excluded c over age wh en h er husb andRandy drov e their car. We h eld th e named -driv er exclu sionin th at case 24


### vo id b ecause it d efeated th e p urp o se s o f the statutoryrequ irement fo r un insured-mo torist bene fi ts , and it

did not me et the st at utor y re quir em ents f

or wa ive r. Her e, we have no

25 

### statuto ryp rov isionfor w aiver. O ur statutes create an ab solute requ irement fo r liability insurance up to the statutoryminimum. CONCLUSION ¶23. Acc ordi ngly, we find that, eve n though Holl iday was an exc lude d dri ver under the Direct G eneral p olicyis su edto DaisyLan g, th e exclu siondidno t op erate to elimin ate li abi li ty c over age in t

he m ini mum

am ounts re quir ed by s tatut e, so we a ff ir m t he j udgme nt
re ac hed by the Cour

t of Appea ls , a lt

hough we di sa gre e wi th i ts ci tati on of au tho rity, and
re ver se the tria l court’ s gra nt of summary j udgme nt and re mand for proc ee dings cons is te nt with thi s opi nion. ¶24. THE JUD GM EN T OF T HE C OU RT O F APPEALS IS AFFI RMED. THE JU DG ME NT OF THE MONROE COUNTY CIRCUI T CO UR T I S REV ER SE D AND TH E C AS E I S REM AN DE D. LA MA R, KI TC HE NS , CH AN DL ER , PI ER CE AN D KI NG , JJ . , CO NC UR . COLEMAN, J. , DI SSENTS WITH SE PARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOI NED BY RANDOLPH, P. J. WALLER, C.J. , NOT PARTI CIPATI NG. CO L E M AN , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG :

### 10

¶2 5. I agr e e w i t h t he m a j or i t y t ha tt he C ou r tof

A pp e a l s er r e d i n r e l yi ng on t he l a ng ua ge of Sect i on 63- 15- 43. H ow ever , i n m y vi ew , t he m aj or i t y opi ni on m i s i nt erpr et s t he i nt erpl ay b e tw e e n a n d ju d icia lly a d d s to th e s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e o f M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n s 6 3 -1 5 -3 (j) and 63- 15- 4. I f

ur t herbel i eve the maj or i t y m i s appl i es t he u nd i s put ed f act s r egar di ng t he
cover age i n pl ace and t he i ns ur ance cont r actt o the af or ement i oned s t atut es . A ccor di ngl y, I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶26. A t i s s ue i n t he i ns t ant cas e i s t he cover age – or l ack t her eof – pr ovi ded by a pol i cy of
a u t o mo b i l e l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e i s s u e d b y Di r e c tGe n e r a l a n d b e a r i n g p o l i c y n u mb e rM S P D111604187. T he pol i cy i ns ur ed t he vehi cl e ati s s ue, a 2000 F or d C ont our , and t he decl ar at i ons page e s t abl i shes t hati tcarr i ed l i m i t s of l i abi l i t y of

$25, 000 perper s on and $5 0, 00 0 p er acci den t . “L i m i tof l i abil i t y” is defi ned i n the poli cy as fol l ow s: T h e lim it o f liab ili ty sh o w n in th e D e c la ra tio n s fo r e a c h “ p e rso n ” fo r B o d ily In ju ry L iab ili ty is o u r m a x im u m lim it o f liab ili ty f o r a ll d a m a g e s . . . d u e to bodi l y i nj ur y s us t ai ned by any one person i n any one a ut o acc i dent
. Subj ect t o thi s l i m i tf

oreac h “per s on”, t he l i m i tof l i abi l i t y s how n i n t he D ecl ar at i ons f or each “acc i dent ” f

orB odi l y I nj ur y L i abi l i t y i s ourm axi m um l i m i tof l i abi l i t y f

ora l l da m ages due t o bodi l y i nj ur y t o tw o ormore per son [s i c] re su lti n g fro m a n y o n e a u to a c c id e n t. T he pol i cy al so co ntai ned exc l us i ons i n addi t i on t o t he dr i verexcl us i on ati s s ue t oday, in c lu d in g , in ter a lia , excl usi on s fori ntent i on al act s, an em ployee i njur ed d uri ng t he co urse
o f e m p lo y m e n t, l ia b ility a risin g o u t o f o w n e rsh ip o r o p e ra tio n o f a v e h icle b e in g u se d to
ca rry p erso n s o r pro p erty fo r hire, and the u se o f t h e ins u red v eh icl e w ith o u t a re a so n a b le b e lief o n e is e n tit led to u se it.

### 11

¶2 7
. W ith th e p ro v ision s of t h e p o li cy th u s briefl y de scribe d , I tu rn to th e a p p lica b le sta tu tes , o f w h ich th e re a re tw o . F irst, M iss is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 6 3 -1 5 -4 (2 ) p ro v id e s, in pert i nen tpart , as f

oll ow s: (a) E v ery m o tor v eh icl e o p era ted in this st ate sh all h av e a n insu ran ce ca rd m a in ta in e d in th e m o to r v e h icle a s p ro o f o f liab ili ty in su ra n c e th a t is in compl i ance w i th the l i ab i l i t y l i m i t s r equi r ed by Sect i on 63- 15- 3( j )
. T he i ns ur ed par t i es s hal l be r es pons i bl e f ormai nt ai ni ng t he i ns ur ance car d i n eac h m ot or vehi cl e. ( b) A n i ns ur ance com pany i s s ui ng a pol i cy of m ot orvehi cl e l i abi l i t y i ns ur ance as r e qu i r e d by thi s s e c t i on s ha l l f urni s h t o t he i ns ur e d a n i ns ur a nc e car d f or e a c h m o to r v e h ic le a t th e tim e th e in s u ra n c e p o lic y b e c o m e s e ff e c tiv e . . . . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 63- 15- 4( 2) ( R ev. 2013) ( emphasi s added)
. Second, M i ssi ss i ppi C ode S ect i on 63 -15-3(

j ) pr ov i des as f

oll ow s:

“ P ro o f o f fin a n c ial re sp o n sib ili ty ” m e a n s p ro o f o f a b ili ty to re s p o n d in damages f

orl i abi l i t y, on acc ountof acci dent s occurr i ng s ubs equentt o t he eff ect i ve date of s ai d proof, ar i si ng out of the ow nershi p, m ai ntenance o r use o f a m o to r v e h icl e, i n the a m o u n t of T w en ty-fi v e T h o u san d D o ll ars ( $25, 000. 00) be caus e of bodi l y i nj ur y t o ordeath of one ( 1) per s on i n any one (1 ) a c c id e n t, an d su b

jec t to sa id lim it fo r o n e (1 ) p e rso n , in th e a m o u n t o f F ifty T hous and D ol l ar s ( $50, 000. 00) beca us e of bodi l y i nj ur y t o ordeath of t w o ( 2) orm or e per s ons i n any one ( 1) acc i dent , and i n t he am ount of T w ent y- f

i ve T h o u sa n d D o llars ($ 2 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 ) b e c a u se o f in ju ry to o r d e stru c tio n o f p ro p e rty o f o th e rs in a n y o n e (1 ) a c c id e n t. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 63- 15- 3( j ) ( R ev. 2013)
. I agr ee w i t h t he maj or i t y t hatSect i on 63- 15- 43 l acks any cont r ol l i ng i nf l uence overt he i s s ue bef or e t he C our tt oday, pur s uantt o ourhol di ng i n State Far m Mut ual

A utom obile I

nsur ance Co. v. Mettetal , 5 3 4 S o . 2 d 1 8 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). A s t he maj or i t y po i nts out , Sect i on 63- 15- 43 harkens back t o t he s ys t em of c er t i f i cat es of f i nanci al r es pons i bi l i t y, w hi ch pr edat es M i s s i s si ppi ’ s m andat or y l i abi l i t y i ns ur ance
r equi r ement . H ow ever , w hen t he Legi s l atur e enac t ed t he new , m andat or y l i abi l i t y i ns ur ance

### 12

r equi r ement , i tdi d s o w hi l e l eavi ng m os tof t he s t atut es r egul at i ng pr oof of f i nanci al resp o n sibil ity intact. R e a d in g th e statutes a s a w h o le, itap p ea rs t h at t h e L eg isl ature
s uper i m po sed the new m andat or y i ns ur ance r equi r ement overt he pr oof of f i nanci al
res po nsi bil i t y st at utes . ¶28. T he i m pos i t i on of the m andat or y l i abi l i t y i ns ur ance r equi r ement overt he pr e- exi s t i ng
s t atut es de l i neat i ng the pr ocedur es a nd r equi r ement s of the ol derpr oof

of f i nanci al
r es pons i bi l i t y s er ves as t he r ootof my di s agr eementw i t h the m aj or i t y. J us ta s Sect i on 63- 15- 43 pr edat es the m andat or y i ns ur ance r equi r ement , s o does Sect i on 63- 15- 3( j ) , w hi ch def

i nes

“ p ro o f o f fin a n c ial re sp o n sib ili ty ” a n d is, th e re fo re , rele v a n t to th e re q u ire m e n ts o f liab ili ty in su ra n c e c o v e ra g e o n ly to the ex ten t S e c tio n 6 3 -1 5 -4 (2 )(a ), q u o ted a b o v e , inc o rp o ra tes it. A ccor di ngl y, t he ques t i on w e mustas k i s t o w hate xt ent , i f a ny, doe s Sect i on 63- 15- 4( 2) ( a) in c o rp o ra te S e c tio n 6 3 -1 5 -3 (j )? T h e p la in la n g u a g e o f 6 3 -1 5 -4 (2 )( a ) g iv e s u s th e a n s w e r, s ee L aw s on v. Honeyw el

l I nt ’ l , I nc. , 7 5 S o . 3 d 1 0 2 4 , 1 0 3 0 (M iss . 2 0 1 1 ) (T h e C o u rt “ c a n n o t .

. . a d d to th e p lain m e a n in g o f th e sta tu te o r p re su m e th a t th e leg isla tu re fa iled to sta te
s om et hi ng ot hert han w hatw as pl ai nly st at ed. ”) ( quot i ng H is W ay Hom es, Inc. v. Miss. G a m ing C o m m ’n , 733 So. 2d 764, 769 ( M i s s . 1999) ) , w hi ch i s t hatt he l i abi l i t y l i m i t s gi ven in S ec ti o n 6 3 -15 -3(j) are inc o rpo rated into a n d req u ir ed b y S ec ti o n 6 3 -15 -4(2 )(a). ¶ 2 9
. In o th e r w o rd s, the L e g isla tu re re q u ire s th a t li a b ili ty in su ra n c e h a v e lim its o f liab ili ty of $25, 000 perper s on and $50, 000 peracc i dent
. R es pect f ul l y, t o do as t he maj ori t y does t oday and i ncorpor at e addi t i onal l anguage f r om Sect i on 63- 15- 3(

j ) i n or dert o l i m i tpol i cy excl us i ons i m pr oper l y adds t o t he pl ai n m eani ng of M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s s t atut or y l i abi l i t y i ns ur ance
r equi r ement . T he undi s put ed pol i cy l anguage a ti s s ue in t he i nst antcas e def i nes l i m i t s of

### 13

l i abi l i t y as t he gr eat es tdol l aramount t he i ns ur ance com pan y w i l l be r equi r ed t o pay. T he f act s of the c as e and c ont r actati s s ue s how t hatpol i cy number M SPD
- 111604187 carr i ed lim its o f liab ili ty o f $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 p e r p e rso n a n d $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 p e r a c c id e n t. ¶30. I n r eac hi ng m or e expans i vel y i nt o Sect i on 63- 15- 3( j ) t han t he pl ai n l anguage of 63- 15- 4( a) ( 2) s uppor t s , t he maj or i t y hol ds t hatal l car s m us tbe i ns ur ed atal l t i m es w hi l e bei ng oper at ed on t he r oads , and bec aus e t he dr i verexcl us i on ati s s ue r ender ed t he s ubj ectcar uni ns ur ed f

orpurpos es of

i t s ope r at i on a tt he t i m e of t he under l yi ng acc i dent , t he exc l us i on
v iolates M issi ssipp i law
. U n d er t h e m ajorit y ’s an alys is, w h at othe r po li cy ex clus ion s a re inv ali d ? If a d ri v er u ses a n o therw ise-i n su red v eh icl e to c au se in tention al ha rm to an o ther, t he d am age caus ed w oul d be e xcl uded underthe l anguage of the pol i cy i n the i ns t ant cas e and undert he l anguage of every aut om obi l e l i abi l i t y i ns ur ance pol i cy I can r eca l l r eadi ng. H ow ever , undert he r eas oni ng o f t he m aj or i t y w oul d s uch an e xcl us i on be i l l egal beca us e,
w hen t he dr i verw as act i ng w i t h i nt ent , the carw oul d be uni ns ur ed? I f a c arw as s t ol en and th e n use d t o i n

jure an o ther, w o u ld t h e ex clus ion rega rdin g use by on e w ith o u t rea so n to b e liev e h e is e n tit led to d riv e th e c a r n o lo n g e r a p p ly ? T o q u o te th e m a jo rity , in b o th hyp othe t i c a l s i tua t i on s , the p ol i c y “ f a i l s t o i ns ur e the v e hi c l e t o t he s t a tut ory mi ni mum f or
a p o rt io n o f t h e tim e it is o p e ra te d w ith in th e s ta te .” ¶31. T he maj or i t y at t empt s t o di s t ance i t s el f f r om the pr obl ems I r ai s e by poi nt i ng out t hat t he above excl usi on s ar e notati s s ue i n t he i ns t antl i t i gat i on, w hi ch i s t rue. H ow ever , t he
m aj ori t y o pini on announces a l egal pr i ncipl e, t hat unde r Sect i on 63 -15-4( a), al l veh i cl es m ust be co vered b y li abil i t y insur ance a tall t i m es w hil e being o perat ed u po n M i ssi ssi pp i ’s roads. T h a t p rin c ip le h a s c o n se q u e n c e s th a t w ill ap p ly to fu tu re li tig a tio n an d , a s I u n d e rsta n d it, it

### 14

w i l l appl y t o end al l e xcl us i ons . T he maj or i t y m ys t er i ous l y s eems t o bel i eve that , i n or der fo r an y ex c lu sio n to b e v a lid , th e L e g isla tu re m u st m a n d a te it, or a t lea st e x p licitly a llo w it, i n t he w or di ng of t he st atut e i t s el f
. H ow ever , t he bet t ers t at ement of t he l aw i s t hatpar t i es
ar e f r ee t o agr ee t o w hat evercont r actual t er m s t hey w i s h as l ong as t he t er m s ar e not p ro h ib ite d
. K

och v. H & S D ev. C o. , 249 M i s s . 590, 629, 163 So. 2d 710, 727 ( 1964) ( “Pr ovi ded i ti s noti l l egal oragai ns tpubl i c pol i cy, per s ons have a nd s houl d have the r i ght to c o n tra c t w ith ref

e re n c e to th e ir p ro p e rty , the ir in ter e sts th e re in , an d th e u se th e re o f w ith ot herper s ons , and t o r el y upon t he t er m s and condi t i ons of t he contr actm utual l y agr eed upon. ”)
. T he maj or i t y acc us es m y di s s entof openi ng t he doort o any and al l excl us i ons , but t hen i t s el f

pot ent i al l y cl os es t he doort o al l excl us i ons and f ai l s t o expl ai n how , undert he pr i nci pl e of

l aw es t abl i s hed, t he exc l us i ons I ci t e ca n r emai n val i d. B eca us e w hatexcl us i ons to a llo w , if

a n y , is th e p ro v in c e o f t h e L e g is la tu re , a n d th e s ta tu te s i n q u e s ti o n a re s ile n t, I bel i eve t he bett ercour s e i s t o al l ow t he Legi s l atur e t o m ake the s ubs t ant i ve l aw on t he q u e stio n ra th e r th a n th e C o u rt. ¶32. I can f

i nd not hi ng i n t he L egi sl at ure’ s enac t m ent s r equi r i ng l i abi l i t y i ns ur ance t hat pr ohi bi t s pol i cy excl us i ons or , t o us e t he m aj or i t y’ s l anguage , r equi r es a vehi cl e t o be i ns ur ed unde re ve r y c i r c ums t a nc e a nd a ta l l t i mes i ti s b e i ng o pe r a t e d w i t hi n t he s t a t e . W hat does exi s ti s t he r equi r ement t hata pol i cy of l i abi l i t y i ns ur ance be at t ache d t o eac h vehi cl e bei ng oper at ed w i t hi n t he s t at e, and t hatt he pol i cy have l i abi l i t y l i m i t s of $25, 000 perper s on and $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 p e r a c c id e n t. T h e c a r a t issu e h a d su c h a p o licy a ttac h e d to it. ¶33. T he maj or i t y’ s expansi on o f t he ph ras e “li abi l i t y l i m i t s , ” f ound i n Sect i on 63- 15- 4( a) ( 2) , beyond t he dol l aramount s of t he pol i cy l i m i t s l acks s uppo rtfr om t he undi s put ed

### 15

f act s of t he ca s e bef

or e t he C our tand f

r om t he r el evan t st at ut es . L i abi l i t y l i m i t s and
e x c lu sio n s a re tw o se p a ra te in su ra n c e p o licy item s, a n d w h ile th e sta tu tes p ro v id e e x p licit,
m an d atory d o ll ar-am o u n t r eq u ir em en ts f o r t h e fo rm e r, th e y rem ain s il en t as t o the latt er. A c c o rd in g ly , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. RANDOL P H, P . J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.