Case Name: Anthony Greg MEADOWS, Alfred Allen Meadows, Jeffrey Jetton and Gloria Jetton v. MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1994-03-17
Citations: 634 So. 2d 108
Docket Number: No. 91-CA-00437
Parties: Anthony Greg MEADOWS, Alfred Allen Meadows, Jeffrey Jetton and Gloria Jetton v. MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY.
Judges: Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and BANKS and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 634
Pages: 108–112

Head Matter:
Anthony Greg MEADOWS, Alfred Allen Meadows, Jeffrey Jetton and Gloria Jetton v. MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY.
No. 91-CA-00437.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
March 17, 1994.
Tommy Dulin, Dulin & Dulin, Gulfport, Jerry Read, Biloxi, for appellants.
Rodney D. Robinson, Allen Cobb &.Hood, Harry R. Allen, Gulfport, for appellee.
Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and BANKS and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., JJ.

Opinion:
JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr.,
Justice, for the Court:
In this stacking case, the parties stipulate the facts, and the issue, as framed by appellants, is "whether Jeffrey Jetton and Anthony Meadows are entitled to 'stack' five uninsured motorist coverages sold by Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance Company to the owner of the vehicle in which they were injured as guest passengers." The issue as framed by Mississippi Farm Bureau is "whether, under Mississippi law, guest passengers — who are not resident relatives of driver's household — qualify as 'insureds' for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage under separate policies of insurance issued to the driver's household, which policies cover solely vehicles which were not involved in the accident at issue."
Anthony Greg Meadows and Jeffrey Jetton were guest passengers in a 1972 Chevrolet pickup owned by Marcus Blackwell and driven by his son, Malcolm Blackwell. The guest passengers and the driver, all minors, sustained serious injuries in an automobile accident caused by the negligence of an uninsured motorist. In addition to the 1972 Chevrolet truck, Marcus had insured with Mississippi Farm Bureau five additional vehicles. Farm Bureau claims that each vehicle is insured by a separate policy which provides uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $10,000/$20,000. Mississippi Farm Bureau interplead the $20,000 uninsured motorist coverage on the 1972 truck, and the three claimants agreed to divide that amount equally. However, Mississippi Farm Bureau denied uninsured motorist policy stacking to the guest passengers.
The policy provisions at issue in this ease are not ambiguous, violative of public policy arguments or in conflict with Miss.Code Ann. § 83-ll-103(b). The circuit court correctly applied the policy provisions and concluded that Meadows and Jetton were not "insureds" .under the uninsured motorist provisions of these Mississippi Farm Bureau policies. We affirm the lower court's ruling of summary judgment in favor of Mississippi Farm Bureau dismissing the claims of Anthony Greg Meadows and Jeffrey Jetton.
I.WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS BELOW ARE ENTITLED TO "STACK" FIVE UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGES SOLD BY MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY TO THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH THEY WERE INJURED AS GUEST PASSENGERS.
FACTS
Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance Company insured a 1972 Chevrolet truck owned by Marcus Blackwell and operated by his minor son, Jonathan Malcolm Blackwell. The truck was involved in a collision with an uninsured motorist on June 27, 1989, in Harrison County. The driver and the two minor passengers, Jeffrey Jetton and Anthony Meadows, were seriously injured. The uninsured motorist coverage on the 1972 truck provided limits in the amount of $10,000/$20, 000. That amount was interplead into the Chancery Court of Stone County and, by agreement, divided equally among the three minors. Determination of the uninsured motorist coverage question was made by the Circuit Court following transfer by the chancellor. Marcus Blackwell had in effect five additional policies of insurance with Mississippi Farm Bureau covering five other vehicles as follows:
1. Policy No. A058322, covering a 1981 Chevrolet pickup to Marcus Blackwell, as named insured;
2. Policy No. A059396, covering a 1976 Dodge truck to Blackwell & Sons, as named insured;
3. Policy No. A145736, covering a 1975 Ford truck to Blackwell & Sons, Inc., as named insured;
4. Policy No. A145735, covering a 1976 trailer to Blackwell & Sons, Inc.;
5. Policy No. A392140, covering a 1985 Oldsmobile sedan issued to Blackwell & Sons, Inc.
Each policy provided uninsured motorist coverage limits of $10,000/$20,000.
Under these five separate policies, Mississippi Farm Bureau paid to Jonathan Malcolm Blackwell the sum of $50,000 representing the maximum amount of uninsured motorist coverage available by stacking the coverage of the five policies. The two minor passengers claimed that they also were entitled to stack the uninsured motorist coverage on other vehicles owned by Blackwell, however, Mississippi Farm Bureau denied the coverage claiming they were not named insureds under those policies.
LAW
The specific language of the policies is similar to the Allstate policy in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Davis, 613 So.2d 1179 (Miss.1992).
The language is the same in each of the six Mississippi Farm Bureau policies in question:
(a.) The unqualified word "Insured" means:
(1.) The first named insured as stated in the declaration of the policy and while residents of the same household, his spouse and relatives of either.
(2.) Any permissive user or guest while occupying an insured automobile.
"Insured Automobile" shall not include:
(iv.) For Permissive users or guests, an automobile other than the one involved in the accident, that is owned, operated or used by the named insured. (Emphasis added)
It is uncontradicted that neither Jetton nor Meadows is a named insured, the spouse of a named insured, or a resident relative of the Blackwell household. They were occupants of the 1972 Chevrolet pickup covered by Policy No. A277154 at the time of the automobile collision.
Jetton and Meadows argue this policy language is ambiguous: "(2) Any permissive user or guest while occupying an insured automobile." (Emphasis added). Use of the word "an" instead of the word "the," they say, indicates an intention to afford insurance coverage to guest passengers for more than the one vehicle which they were occupying. They argue that insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion, drafted by the insurance company, and the that ambiguity should be interpreted in favor of coverage and against the insurance company. They conclude Mississippi Farm Bureau issued, in effect, just one policy covering the six vehicles because the form insurance policy was the same in all and only the declaration pages were different, varying in the name of the insured and the particular motor vehicle insured. The amount of uninsured motorist coverage available under each of the six policies was the same minimum limits of $10,000/$20,000.
Previously this Court has recognized that Miss.Code Ann. § 83-ll-103(b) recognizes two categories of insured:
Class 1: The named insured and, while resident of the same household, the named insured's spouse and relatives of either, while in a motor vehicle or otherwise.
Class 2: A guest passenger in such motor vehicles to which the policy applies.
See Harris v. Magee, 573 So.2d 646, 656 (Miss.1990).
Those in the first category, or Class 1 insureds, are given broad coverage including protection while they are in a motor vehicle or otherwise.
Those in Class 2 are granted restrictive rights and are afforded coverage only by virtue of their occupancy of the particular vehicle at the time of the accident. See Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Barker, 451 So.2d 731, 734 (Miss.1984); Lowery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 285 So.2d 767, 771 (Miss.1973).
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Davis, 613 So.2d 1179 (Miss.1992), this Court held similar policy provisions were not violative of the uninsured motorist statute and, therefore, valid:
Tammy Davis, on the other hand, was a guest passenger in only one of the three vehicles owned by the Holemans, and she was an "insured" only under the policy covering the accident vehicle. The Davises are only entitled to stack the UM coverage provided by the policies in which Tammy met the definition of an "insured" either under the terms of the policy and/or the UM statute, (citation omitted). Thus, the Davises are only entitled to receive the UM coverage provided by their own poli- eies and the policy covering the accident vehicle.
Davis, 613 So.2d at 1183. [Emphasis added]. Meadows and Jetton are Class 2 "insureds" limited to the uninsured motorist coverage on the 1972 Chevrolet truck in which they were passengers at the time of the automobile collision with the uninsured motorist. They are not "insured" under the five policies insuring additional vehicles owned by Blackwell. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Davis, 613 So.2d 1179, 1183 (Miss.1992).
CONCLUSION
Summary judgment in favor of Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance Company dismissing the claims of Anthony Greg Meadows and Jeffrey Jetton is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HAWKINS, C.J., and DAN M. LEE and PRATHER, P.JJ., and PITTMAN, BANKS and SMITH, JJ., concur.
McRAE, J., dissents with separate written opinion, joined by SULLIVAN, J.