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 0 3 0 3 - S CT CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 3 - CA- 0 2 4 5 7 - S CT BE T HANY WOOT

EN , A MI NOR , BY A ND TH RO U GH H ER PA REN TS, N

EX T F RIEN D S, AN D GUA RD I

AN S , BE T T Y WOOT

EN AN D CHARLESWOOTEN

v. M I S S I S S I PP I FARM BUREAU I

NSURA NCE COM P AN Y ON M OTI ON F OR RE HEAR I NG D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 1/ 2004 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. S EBE DALE, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ARI ON COU NTY CHANCERY COURT A TTO RN EY FO R A PPELL A N T: A U STI N R. N I M O CK S AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : P AT RI CK H. Z AC HAR Y NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - I NSURANCE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 03/ 02/ 2006 M O T I O N FO R R E H E A R I N G FI L E D : 11/ 14/ 2005 M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. GR AVES, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T h e m o tio n f

o r re h e a rin g is d e n ied . T h e o rig in a l o p in io n is w ith d ra w n a n d th is

o p inion is sub sti tuted there fo r.

### 2

¶2. O n M ar ch 31, 2002, B et hany W oot en ( “W oot en”) w as in jured d u ri n g a t w o- car
acc i dent
. A tt he t i m e of the acc i dent , W oot en w as a perm i s s i ve dr i verof t he vehi cl e ow ned byherpar ent s and i ns ur ed unde r a pol i cyi s s ued byM i s s i s s i ppi Far m B ur eau I ns ur ance C om pany( “Far m B ur eau” )
. W oot en w as cover ed undert he pol i cy , w hi ch pr o vi ded for $15, 000 i n m edi cal paym ent s cover age. Far m B ur eau a dvi s ed W oot en t hati tw oul d notpay th e b ill s f

o r m e d ica l trea tm e n t w h ich w a s n o t c o m p lete d o n o r be f o re M a rc h 3 1 , 2 0 0 3 . T h is deci s i on w as bas ed on l anguage w i t hi n t he pol i cy w hi ch st at ed t hatpaym entw oul d be made

o n m e d ica l ex p e n se s in c u rre d w ith in o n e y e a r f ro m th e d a te o f

a c c id e n t. ¶3. O n M ar ch 31, 2003, W oot en fi l ed her C om pl ai nt for D ecl ar at or y J udgm ent , s eeki ng a decl ar at i on fr om t he C hance r y C our t of M ar i on C ount yt hatt he di s put ed pr ovi s i on of t he

m edi cal paym ent s pol i cybe i nt erpr et ed i n a mannercont r ar yt o Far m B ur eau’ s r eadi ng of t he p o licy . F a rm B u re a u f

iled its a n sw e r a n d m o v e d f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. ¶ 4
. N o or a l a r g u me n t o r h e a r i n g was h e l d , a n d o n Oct o b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 3 , t he chanc el l or handed dow n hi s opi ni on w hi ch st at ed t hat t he i ns ur ance pol i cy phr as e ati s s ue w as cl earand unambi guous . T hus , t he cha ncel l orgr ant ed s um m ar yjudgmentt o Far m B ur eau. T he chanc el l ordeni ed W oot en’ s r eques tforr econs i der at i on, and W oot en appe al ed. ¶5. O n appea l , W oot en as s er t s : ( 1) t he chanc el l or er r ed i n det er m i ni ng t hat t he phr as e at i s s ue i s cl earand unambi guous and fa i l ed t o cons i der t he abs ence of t he w or d “furni s hed” f ro m th e p h ra se in m a k in g th is d e ter m in a tio n ; an d (2 ) th e c h a n c e llo r e rre d in f a ili n g to

### 3

acknow l edge orcons i der t he M i s s i s s i ppi publ i c pol i cycons i der at i ons ati s s ue i n t hi s m at t er
a s p ro v id e d b yth is C o u rt in p ri o r d e c is io n s . A N A L Y S IS ¶6. W e appl ya de novo s t andar d of r evi ew w hen r evi ew i ng a t r i al cour t ’ s gr antor deni al

o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Hu d s o n v . C o u r te s

y Mo to rs, I

n c ., 7 9 4 S o . 2 d 9 9 9 , 1 0 0 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). I . W he t he r t he c hanc e l l or e r r e d i n de t e r m i ni ng t he p h r a s e a t i s s u e w a s c le a r a n d u n a m b ig u o u s . ¶7
. W o o ten m aintains the c h an ce ryco u rte rr e d in d e te rm in in g th e p h ra s e in F arm B ur eau’ s aut o i ns ur ance pol i cyw as cl earand unambi guous . W o o ten al s o ar gues t he

c h a n c e ryc o u rt f

a iled to c o n sid e r th e a b se n c e o f th e w o rd “ f

u rn ish e d ” f

ro m th e p h ra se in

m aking t his deter m i nati on . F arm B ureau co un t ers t hese argum ents by st at i ng t hat the p hrase ati s s ue i n t he pol i cyi s clearand unambi guous and t hatt hi s concl us i on i s s uppor t ed by p re v io u s ru lin g s o f

th is C o u rt a n d c o m m o n s e n s e o f th e E n g lis h la n g u a g e . ¶8. T he m edical pay m ents provis i on ati ssue st at es:

I I . M ED I CAL P AYM EN TS – Co v e r a g e C To pa ya l l r e a s on a bl e e xp e ns es i ncur r ed w i thi n one ye arf r om the dat e of

acci dent for nece s s arym edi cal , s ur gi cal , and dent al s ervices, i n clud ing p rosth eti c d ev ices, a nd nece s s aryambul ance , ho spi t al , professi on al , and fun eral ser vices
... . W e hav e previ ou sl yheld t hat an i nsurance agreem ent shou l d be enfo rced as w ri t t en, un l ess it is a m b ig u o u s . Mis s . Fa r m B u r e a u Mu t. I n s . C o . v . J

o n e s, 75 4 S o. 2d 12 03 , 12 04 (M i ss. 2000)
. W oot en ar gues t he di s put ed phr as e i s ambi guous beca us e i ti s s ubj ectt o m or e t hanAtch ley v. Travelers Ins. C o., 48 9 S
. W. 2d

8 36 ( Tenn. 1 97 2)
. 1 Far r v. Travelers Indem . C

o., 37 5 N
. Y
. S
. 2d

2 29 (N
. Y
. S up . C t. 1 97 5)
. 2 

### 4 one i nt erpr et at i on s i nce there are tw o di ffe r i ng vi ew s on t he mat t er . Speci fi cal l y , W oot en
re lie s o n a c a s e d e c id e d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt o f N e v a d a , U

ni ted Ser vi ces A uto A s s ’ n v. Sc hlang , 8 9 4 P .2 d 9 6 7 (N e v . 1 9 9 5 ). T h e re , th e N e v a d a S u p re m e C o u rt sta ted th a t a m a jo rity of t he cour t s cons i der i ng t he i s s ue have concl uded t hatexpens es ar e “i ncur r ed” w hen one ha s p a id o r b e c o m e le g a lly o b lig a te d to p a yth e m . I d. a t9 6 9
. Ho we ve r , t he N e v a d a S u p r e me C our tal s o not ed a “ m i nor i t ypos i t i on” w hi ch gener al l y acc ept s t he phr as e ati s s ue “mustbe d e e m e d to in c lu d e a n yliab ili tyu n d e rta k e n w ith in a y e a r o f th e a c c id e n t f o r re a so n a b le

m edi cal s er vi ces nece s s i t at ed as a r es ul t of t he acc i dent , i r r es pect i ve of the t i m e w i t hi n w hi ch

s uch s er vi ces ar e compl et ed. ” I d . at972 ( quot i ng W

h ittle v . G o v ’t

E mp lo y e e s I n s . C o ., 273 N
. Y
. S. 2d 442, 443 ( N
. Y
. A pp. T er m 1966) )
. W o o ten al s o i nfor m s t hi s C our tt hatt he

“ m in o ri ty p o s itio n ” h a s b e e n a d o p te d b yT e n n e s s e e , N e w Y o rk , a n d L o u is ia n a . 1 2 ¶9. Far m B ur eau c ont ends t he mer e fa ctt hatdi ffe r entcour t s fr om di ffe r ents t at es have

re a c h e d d if

f e rin g o p in io n s o n th e q u e stio n p re se n tlyb e f o re th is C o u rt, d o e s n o t (a n d sh o u ld

n o t) a llo w W o o ten to “ b o o tstra p ” h e rse lf in to th e c o n c lu s io n th a t th e p h ra se a t issu e is

a m b ig u o u s . ¶10
. T herefore, w e m ust i nit i al l y decide i f t he dis pu t ed ph ras e i s t rul y am biguou s becau se
o f v a ry in g in ter p re tatio n s o r if th e c h a n c e llo r w a s c o rre c t in g iv in g th e w o rd s u se d th e ir p lain and ordi narym eaning. W oo t en cit es Sc hlangi n or der t o per s uade thi s C our tt o adoptt he

“ m in o rityp o sitio n ” w h e n in ter p re tin g th e ter m “ in c u rre d ” in a n in su ra n c e c o n tra c t. W h ile itV a. Fa r m Bu r eau M ut

. I ns . Co . v. H od

ges , 38 5 S.E
. 2 d 61 2 (V a. 19 8 9 ). 3 

### 5 is tru e th a t t h e N e v a d a S u p re m e C o u rt d isc u ss e d th e m a jo ritya n d m in o rityp o sitio n s in Sc hlang , w hen r eac hi ng i t s di s pos i t i on, t he cour ts t at ed:

W e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y p o s i t i o n a s i l l u s t r a t e d b y V irg in ia Far m B ure au and s i m i l arcas es i s t he bet t err eas oned 3 appr oach, and el ect t o adopt t he re as oni ng of t hos e ca s es . I n our vi ew , a contr ar ypos i t i on w oul d do vi ol ence t o t he l anguage of t he i ns ur ance cont r actand w oul d be i ncons i s t entw i t h s ound p rin c ip les o f

c o n tra c t la w . A lth o u g h w e u n d e rsta n d th e h a rd sh ip ourrul i ng m ayi m pos e upon Schl ang, t hat fac tdoes notgi ve us l i cens e t o r ew r i t e t he cont r act of i ns ur ance t o pr ovi de cove r age wh e r e i td o e s n o te x i s t
... . F o rt h e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e we concl ude t hatSchl ang’ s contested expens es w er e noti ncur r ed w ith in th e lim ita tio n p e ri o d o f h is p o lic y . Sc hlang , 8 9 4 P .2 d a t 9 7 3
. T he cour ti n Sc hlangdi d notadoptt he mi nor i t ypos i t i on, butr ever s ed t he dec i s i on of t he dis t r i c t c ou r t i n fa vo r of t he i ns ur a nc e c ompa ny . W oo t e n a l s o c i t e s t he 4- pr on ged t est devel oped by t he Loui s i ana Courtof A ppeal s i n V a lla da r e s v . Mo n a r c h I n s . C o ., 282 So. 2d 5 6 9 (L a . C t. A p p . 1 9 7 3 ). S p e c if ica lly , the c o u rt sta ted th a t w h e n : [T]he i nj ur y m ani fes t s i t s el f w i t hi n one y earof t he ac ci dent , t he insur eri s aw ar e of the natur e of the i nj ur y , t he i ns ur ed appr oache s a phy s i ci an and obt ai ns a d ia gnos i s and r ecomm ended c our s e of tr eatm entpr i ort o t he expi r at i on of one y earfr om t he dat e of the ac ci dent , and t he t r eatm entcannot s ucce s s ful l ybe compl et ed w i t hi n t he one y earper i od, t hatt he i n s u r e d h a s n e v e r t h e l e s s ‘ i n c u r r e d ’ a n e x p e n s e wi t h i n t h e t e r ms o f t h e p o l i c y.

### 6

Valladar es , 282 So. 2d at572. W oot en t hen as s er t s t hatt he Valladar es t es thas been val i dat ed byt hi s C our ti n Interstate L i fe & A cci den t

C o. v. W aters, 213 M i s s . 265, 56 So. 2d 493 ( 1952)
. I n W

aters , t he C our ts t at ed: A ccor di ng t o t he doct or ’ s t es t im o n y in t he ca s e t hatw e have b e f o re u s, th e lo ss o f

a p p e llee ’s le g f

o llo w e d a s th e im m e d iate r es ul tof t he acci dent
. T he ac tual amput at i on w as del ay ed, not beca us e t he appe l l ee or t he doct orent er t ai ned anyhope t hatt he l eg m igh t be s aved, butbeca us e of the w eake ned condi t i on of t he appe l l ee w h o w as s uffe r i ng fr om t he s ever e i nfec t i on and f e v e r d ire c tlyre su lti n g f ro m th e a c c id e n t an d w h o w o u ld pr obabl ynothave been abl e t o s ur vi ve t he s hock i nci dentt o a m aj oroper at i on. T he oper at i on w as del ay ed not beca us e of a ny hope that t he l eg mi ghtbe s aved, butfort he purpos es of a v o id in g th e risk o f

k ill in g th e p a tien t. A c c id e n t p o licie s, lik e a ll ot heri ns ur ance pol i ci es , m us tbe gi ven a r eas o n ab l e and se n sib le in ter p re tatio n . T h e lo ss o f th e m e m b e r o c c u rre d w ith in t hi r t yday s fr om t he dat e of t he acc i dent
. T he fa ctt hatt he ac tual a m p u tatio n h a s to b e d e layed f o r m o re th a n th irtyd a y s to a v o id ki l l i ng the p ati entw hos e extr eme condi t i on w as due t o t he i nj ur i es r ece i ved i n t he ac ci dentdi d notr el i eve the appell ant f r o m l i a b i l i t y o n t h e p o l i c y.
W a te rs, 5 6 S o .2 d a t 2 7 3
. W aters i s di s t i ngui s hed fr om t he pre s entcas e bec aus e i n W aters , t he amput at i on neede d byt he i nj ur ed par t y w as del ay ed notbychoi ce of t he i nj ur ed par t yor beca us e t he i nj ur ed par t yhad ot hert r eatm entopt i ons , butt o avoi d ki l l i ng hi m . W oot en had t he i ni t i al choi ce of

s ur ger y , but decl i ned t hi s opt i on and chos e t o r ece i ve pai n m anage m ent
car e. U nl i ke t he i nj ur ed par t yi n W aters , W o o t e n ’ s l i f

e w a s n o ti m m e d i a t e l y i n j e o p a r d y. T h e re f o re , W o o ten is i n c o rre c t in a ss e rtin g th a t a c o n stru c tio n u sin g th e tes t in Valladar es i s cons i s t entw i t h M i s s i s s i ppi l aw as i nt erpr et ed byt hi s C our ti n W aters. T h is C o u rt in

### 7

W aters found t hatt he i nj ur ed p ar t yw as deal i ng w i t h a l i fe ordeath s i tuat i on and t hatt he i ns ur ance company s houl d not be al l ow ed t o s evercover age pr i ort o t he amput at i on of t he i nj ur ed par t y ’ s l eg. W oot en’ s s i tuat i on i s notas i m m ediate o rdr as t i c bec aus e s he had a choi ce of t r eatm ent aft err evi ew i ng heropt i ons . Subse quent l y , W oot en has notpr es ent ed a stro n g , p e rsu a siv e a rg u m e n t th a t th is C o u rt h a s p re v io u slye m b ra c e d th e m in o rity in te rp re ta tio n o f

th e d is p u te d p h ra s e . ¶11. H ow ever , t hi s C our thas fol low ed the pl ai n m eani ng and comm on s ens e appr oach

w h e n in te rp re tin g in s u ra n c e c la u s e s . N o x u b e e C o u n ty S c h o o l D is t. v . U n ite d N a t. I n s . C o ., 8 8 3 S o .2 d 1 1 5 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); B la c k le d g e v . O m e

g a I n s . C o ., 7 4 0 S o . 2 d 2 9 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ); A lls ta te I

n s . C o . v . Ch ic ag o I

n s . C o ., 676 So. 2d 271 ( M i s s . 1996)
. T he cha ncerycour tr el i ed on t hi s C our t ’ s defi ni t i on of t he w or d “i ncur r ed” i n R es er ve Li f e Co. v. C oke : A s us ed i n t he pol i cyand s ui t the w o rd “i ncur r ed” e m phas i zes t he i dea of l i abil i t yand t he d efi nit i on of “incur” i s to h ave l i abil i t i es (or a l i abil i t y ) thrust upon one byactoroper at i on of l aw ; a t hi ng forw hi ch the re e xi s t s no obl i gat i on t o pay , ei t herexpr es s ori m pl i ed, cannoti n l aw const i tut e an “ in c u rre d e x p e n se ” ; a d e b t o r e x p e n se h a s b e e n in c u rre d o n lyw h e n liab ili ty at t aches. 2 4 M iss . 9 3 6 , 1 8 3 S o .2 d 4 9 0 (1 9 6 6 ). A ls o , a c c o rd in g to W e b ste r’s N e w C o lleg iate D i ct i onar y1337 ( 1980) , t he w or d “w i t hi n” m ay funct i on as an adve rb, pr epos i t i on, noun, or adject i ve. In the con t ext i n w hich i ti s used i n the di sputed ph ras e, “w i t hin” fun ct i on s as a pr epos i t i on - m eani ng not bey ond t he quant i t y , degr ee, orl i m i t at i ons . So, t he pl ai n, comm on
s ens e meani ng of t he phr as e “ i n c u r r e d wi th i n o n e y e a rf

r o m t h e d a t e o

f a c c i de nt ” m ay
s ens i b l y b e i n t e rp r e t e d t o me a n t h a t t h e l i a b i l i t y o r d u t y o f t h e i n s u r a n c e c o mpa n y t o pay

### 8

m edi cal expense s m ay n otext end bey ond t he l i m i t at i on of one y earfr om t he dat e of the

a c c id e n t. ¶12. W oot en al s o arg u es that t he chanc el l or fai l ed t o cons i der t he abs ence of t he w or ds

“ a n d f u rn ish e d ” f

ro m th e p h ra se u n d e r c o n sid e ra tio n . In e ss e n c e , W o o ten a sk s to h a v e th is C our tr evi s e t he di s put ed phr as e i n or dert o change the m eani ng as i ti s cur r ent l yw r i t t en. H o w e v e r, W o o ten is p re c lu d e d f ro m m a k in g th is a rg u m e n t b e c a u se in iti a llyin h e r B rie f in Suppor tof t he M ot i on for Sum m ar y J udgm ent , W oot en s t at ed t hat“ot herj ur i s di ct i ons and

co u rt s h av e a d d re s s e d this i ssu e, bu t th ese ca ses s h o u ld n o t be c o n side red b ythis co u rt beca us e t he pol i cyl anguage ati s s ue i n t hos e cas es i s di ffe r ent fr om t he pol i cyl anguage her e. Speci fi ca ll y , thes e ca s es i nvol ve pol i cyl anguage w hi ch r equi r e t hatt he cos t s ati s s ue be “i ncur r ed fors er vi ces fur ni s hed”, orot hers i m i l arl anguage i nvol vi ng t he w or ds “furni s h”

or“furni s hed”. C l ear l yt he us e of the t er m “furni s h” pl ace s a di ffe r en t m eani ng on t he

s ubj ectphr as e. T hus , i n addr es s i ng t hi s i s s ue t hi s cour ts houl d onl yempl oyt hos e ca s es
w h ich a d d re ss w h ich a d d re ss id e n tica l p o licylan g u a g e .. .. ” F a rm B u re a u is co rre c t w h e n it

s ugges t s t hatW oot en s houl d notbe al l ow ed t o as s er tas er r ort hatw hi ch s he r eques t ed t he chanc er ycour ti gnor e i n heror i gi nal m ot i on and br i ef. ¶13. Fur t her m or e, t hi s C our tt r adi t i onal l yappl i es t he ordi nar y and pl ai n m eani ng of w or ds and conc l udes t hatt he di s p u ted phr as e mustbe cons t rued as w r i t t en. T her efor e, t he chanc el l ordi d noter ri n hi s i nt erpr et at i on of t he phr as e.

### 9

I I . W het her t he chancel l or er red i n f a i l i ng t o acknow l edge or c onsi der M i s s i s s i ppi pub l i c pol i cy consi derat i ons at i s s ue i n t hi s m at t er. ¶ 1 4
. A f

ter c a re f u l ex a m in a tio n o f

W o o ten ’s b rie f

, w e c o n c lu d e th a t W o o ten f a iled to p ro v id e a n ysta tu to ryp ro v isio n o r ca se law in su p p o rt o f a p u b lic p o licya rg u m e n t. A lso , this C our thas s t at ed t hata publ i c pol i cy o r s t atut or ydi r ect i ve i s notpr es enti n t he medi cal p a y m e n ts c o n te x t. Miss. Farm B u r e a u Ca s . I n s . C o . v . B r itt, 8 2 6 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). T hi s C ourt r eas oned: “bec aus e t her e ar e no equi val ents t atut or ypr ovi s i ons i n M i s s i s s i ppi th a t af f e c t m e d ica l p a y m e n t co v e ra g e c o n tain e d in a u to m o b ile in su ra n c e p o licie s, w e h o ld

s uch cove r age a s gover ned byt he t er m s of ea ch i ns ur an ce pol i cyi n w hi ch i ti s aff or ded, in c lu d in g te rm s o f

lim ita tio n ... .” I

d . at1265 ( quot i ng Szum i ga la v. N

ation w i de M u t

. Ins. C o. , 853 F. 2d 274, 279 ( 5t h C i r . 1988) )
. A bs ent any r el evant s t atut or y pr ovi s i ons orcas e l aw to su p p o rt a p u b lic p o licya r g u m e n t, th is is a n iss u e b e tter s u ited f o r th e L e g isla tu re to
a d d re s s ra th e r t h a n th is C o u rt
. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 1 5
. W e a g re e th a t th e c h a n c e llo r d id n o t e rr in h is in ter p re tatio n o f th e m e d ica l p a y m e n ts p ro v isio n a n d th a t W o o ten f a iled to m a k e a v a lid p u b lic p o licy a rg u m e n t b e f o re th is C o u rt. T h e re f o re , w e a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e c h a n c e ryc o u rt. ¶ 1 6
. AF F I RM ED . S M I TH , C. J . , W AL LE R AND C OBB , P . J J . , CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON AND RA ND OL P H, J J . , CO NC UR . DI AZ AN D E AS L E Y, J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .