Title: Allstate Ins. Co. v. Moulton
Citation: 464 So. 2d 507
Docket Number: 55360
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: February 20, 1985

464 So. 2d 507 (1985) ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Mrs. John L. MOULTON. No. 55360. Supreme Court of Mississippi. February 20, 1985. Rehearing Denied May 22, 1985. *508 Arthur F. Jernigan, Jr., Bacon, Jernigan &amp; Martin, Jackson, for appellant. William C. Spencer, Holly Springs, for appellee. Before ROY NOBLE LEE, DAN M. LEE and PRATHER, JJ. DAN M. LEE, Justice, for the Court: This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Marshall County wherein the parties sought a declaratory judgment pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 57. There is no factual dispute in this cause. At issue is whether the appellant, Allstate Insurance Company, is obligated to defend and indemnify the appellee, Mrs. Moulton, in an action against her for malicious prosecution. The circuit court determined that Allstate was so obligated under a comprehensive dwelling policy purchased by Mrs. Moulton from Allstate. For the reasons stated below, we reverse. On February 24, 1983, Mrs. Moulton swore out a complaint in justice court which stated that Anthony Walls had stolen her dog. Walls was arrested the next day and held in jail for two hours until he posted a $1,000 bond. Walls was brought to trial on March 5, 1983. Mrs. Moulton was the only witness against him and the charges were dismissed. Walls then filed a malicious prosecution action against Mrs. Moulton. Mrs. Moulton is the owner of a comprehensive dwelling policy issued by Allstate. She notified Allstate that in reliance on that insurance contract she expected Allstate to defend her in the malicious prosecution action. Mrs. Moulton's insurance contract contains the following provisions: Is malicious prosecution the type of "occurrence" contemplated by the insurance policy? This Court has not yet passed on that question; however, other courts appear to be in disagreement. In Winkler v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., 51 Md. App. 190, 441 A.2d 1129 (1982), the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that an identical insurance policy provision did not provide coverage to a store owner who was sued for malicious prosecution, slander and false arrest. Winkler was the owner of a jewelry store. He erroneously accused a *509 customer of stealing a diamond and substituting zircon in its place. The customer denied Winkler's accusation and Winkler summoned the police. The customer was arrested and held for several hours in a police station, questioned and strip searched as a result of Winkler's accusations. Ultimately it was determined that the alleged zircon was really a diamond and that the customer had done nothing wrong. The customer then sued Winkler for slander, malicious prosecution and false arrest. The court looked to the terms of the insurance policy which, like the policy in question, stated that it covered bodily or property damage caused by an "occurrence." As in the instant case, that policy defined occurrence as an accident. The court then held: 441 A.2d at 1132. We find the logic of the Maryland court compelling. We recognize that other courts have held that the term accident in a policy such as this refers to unintended consequences of the act such as the infliction of emotional distress. See Deluca v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., 49 A.D.2d 153, 373 N.Y.S.2d 630; however, we are not persuaded by such strained interpretations. Malicious prosecution is an intentional tort and requires proof of the defendant's mental state. Owens v. Kroger Co., 430 So. 2d 843 (Miss. 1983). At the heart of the instant controversy is whether this Court will interpret the word "accident" as referring to Mrs. Moulton's actions swearing out a complaint that Anthony Walls had stolen her dog or whether "accident" refers to the consequences of that act. The policy states unequivocably that "occurrence" is to be interpreted "From the standpoint of the insured." Thus by the terms of the policy we are precluded from interpreting "occurrence" or "accident" from the standpoint of the injured party. We are of the opinion that the contract is sufficiently unambiguous for us to hold that the term accident refers to Mrs. Moulton's action and not whatever unintended damages flowed from that act. Mrs. Moulton obviously intended to swear out the complaint against Anthony Walls. Although she may not have intended for him to suffer humiliation or embarrassment, she certainly intended for him to be arrested. By requiring Allstate to defend and indemnify Mrs. Moulton, this Court would have stretched the meaning of accident beyond the bounds of that normally used in the English language and certainly beyond the bounds of the use intended within the policy. Based on all of the foregoing, we hereby reverse the declaratory judgment of the Circuit Court of Marshall County and remand this cause to that court in order that a declaratory judgment be entered, and such further proceedings as may be consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and HAWKINS, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.