Opinion ID: 1553718
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether herrin-gear and american are involved in the illegal enterprise of selling and administering unregistered insurance.

Text: ¶ 28. Sawyers asserts that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable because the principal purpose of the arbitration agreement is to directly furnish aid and protection to an illegal enterprise, namely,... American and Herrin's agreement to sell and administrate unregistered insurance, the GAP waiver. For this argument, Sawyers cites Mississippi Code Section 83-5-5, which defines insurance company and contract of insurance. See Miss.Code Ann. § 83-5-5 (Rev.1999). As stated by the trial court, based on those definitions, one could certainly argue that the Agreement is in fact an insurance policy. However, the Mississippi Insurance Department stated in its April 17, 2000, Bulletin No.2000-2: At this time, the Mississippi Insurance Department has not determined whether a gap waiver product that is sold to the consumer is insurance. We are taking this issue under advisement and may propose legislation requiring certain disclosures to protect the consumer in the next legislative session. Since the Mississippi Insurance Department is not currently taking the position that the gap waiver product sold by the lender, car dealership, third party administrator etc., to the consumer is insurance, the Mississippi Department of Banking and Consumer Finance will not regulate the amount that is charged to the borrower/consumer for the product under Miss. Code Ann. § 63-19-33 (Supp.1999). Nothing in the record indicates that since this Bulletin, the Mississippi Department of Insurance or the Legislature has made any ruling that GAP waiver products are insurance. ¶ 29. Furthermore, this Court is of the firm opinion that this determination is best left to the Mississippi Insurance Department and the Mississippi Legislature. Thus, we find guidance in the language set forth in the Bulletin, dated April 17, 2000, that a GAP waiver product sold by the car dealership to the consumer is not insurance. See Miss. Power & Light Co. v. Cook, 832 So.2d 474, 480 (Miss.2002) (the doctrine of primary jurisdiction `determines whether the court or the agency should make the initial decision') (quoting Campbell Sixty-Six Express, Inc. v. J. & G. Express, Inc., 244 Miss. 427, 141 So.2d 720, 725 (1962)). Therefore, Sawyers's claims that Herrin-Gear and American are engaged in an illegal enterprise are without merit, and the other allegations asserted by Sawyers regarding these companies' potential insurance violations should be directed to the Commissioner of Insurance. [4] See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 83-5-1 to 83-6-35 (Rev.1999).