Case Name: Ladarrell PERRY, a Minor, By and Through His Mother and Next Friend, Addie PERRY v. NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1997-10-02
Citations: 700 So. 2d 600
Docket Number: No. 95-CA-00269-SCT
Parties: Ladarrell PERRY, a Minor, By and Through His Mother and Next Friend, Addie PERRY v. NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
Judges: DAN LEE, C.J., SULLIVAN, P.J.,.and BANKS and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 700
Pages: 600–602

Head Matter:
Ladarrell PERRY, a Minor, By and Through His Mother and Next Friend, Addie PERRY v. NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
No. 95-CA-00269-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Oct. 2, 1997.
Charles Richard Mullins, Dale Danks, Jr., Merrida Coxwell, Keyes Danks Coxwell & Leonard, Jackson, for Appellant.
Douglas G. Mercier, Mark C. Carroll, Up-shaw Williams Biggers Beckham & Riddick, Jackson, for Appellee.

Opinion:
MeRAE, Justice, for the Court:
¶ 1. This case arises from a January 23, 1995 order of the Hinds County Circuit Court granting Nationwide General Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment. We are asked to consider only the question of a municipality's plan of self-insurance is liability insurance as contemplated by the Uninsured Motorist Act. Finding that it is not, we reverse the circuit court's grant of summary judgment.
I.
¶ 2. Sixteen-year-old Ladarrell Perry was injured on April 9,1994, when his vehicle was struck by a City of Jackson police car. The car Perry was driving was covered by an insurance policy with Nationwide General Insurance Company, which provided $50,000.00 in uninsured motorist benefits. .
¶ 3. Perry, through his' mother and next friend, Addie Perry, filed a complaint against the City of Jackson, the police officer and Nationwide Insurance on October 27, 1994, charging that his injuries were caused by the officer's negligence. He asserted that the City of Jackson had rejected his claim made through the City Attorney's office, and that Nationwide also had refused to pay the benefits to which he was entitled. Nationwide filed a motion for summary judgment on January 14, 1995, arguing that because the City of Jackson purportedly was self-insured at the same level of the uninsured motorists coverage available to Perry, the patrol car was neither uninsured nor underinsured pursuant to the definition set forth in Miss. Code Ann. § 83 — 11—103(c)(iii).
II.
¶ 4. The sole issue raised by the parties for our consideration is whether a plan of self-insurance is "insurance" for the purpose of determining whether a tortfeasor is an "uninsured" motorist under the terms of our Uninsured Motorist Act. We find that it is not. See McCoy v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 688 So.2d 214 (Miss.1996)(a plan of self-insurance is not a commercial insurance policy for purposes of the Uninsured Motorists Act). However, we decline Nationwide's invitation to overrule this Court's decision in Morgan v. City of Ruleville, 627 So.2d 275 (Miss.1993).
¶ 5. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the circuit court granting Nationwide's motion for summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶ 6. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
DAN LEE, C.J., SULLIVAN, P.J.,.and BANKS and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., JJ., concur.
PRATHER, P. J., concurs in part and dissents in part with separate written opinion joined by PITTMAN, SMITH and MILLS, JJ.
. The dissent raises an issue not raised by the parties on appeal. While Perry sought actual damages of $250,000 as well as an additional $250,000 in punitive damages, the question before us is one of coverage and not one of damages. However, in getting to the question of coverage and what one legally is entitled to recover, the dissent overlooks our decisions in both McCoy and Morgan. Furthermore, we have adhered to the proposition that immunily is waived up to the amount of insurance procured. Miss. Code Ann. § 21-15-6, Morgan, 627 So.2d at 280.
Because summary judgment was granted as a matter of law and the question of damages has not been resolved, we cannot simply render the case now before us.