Opinion ID: 741876
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interpreting the Territorial Restriction from the Standpoint of the Boatners

Text: 43 This principle of uninsured motorist law essentially turns on the Boatners' expectations with regard to coverage for Bradley Boatner's death. The Mississippi Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the Mississippi legislature intended to put first accident insureds in as good a position as they would have been had the uninsured motorist purchased automobile liability insurance pursuant to the terms of the Safety Responsibility Act. 11 Accordingly, our task is to determine whether the Boatners could have expected coverage under their policy if the owner or operator of the flatbed truck was insured. 44 The answer to this question is plain enough--the Boatners could not have expected coverage under the circumstances of this case because the Safety Responsibility Act provides coverage only for accidents occurring in the United States and Canada. See, e.g., Spradlin, 650 So.2d at 1387-88 (declining to find UM Act coverage for shooting that did not involve the operation, use, or maintenance of an automobile when such coverage would not have been available under the Safety Responsibility Act). Thus, both the district court's and the Boatners' reading of the UM Act as providing broader (worldwide) coverage than the Safety Responsibility Act does not square with Mississippi principles of divining the intent behind the UM Act. 45