Opinion ID: 1831069
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Third Party Beneficiary Status

Text: ¶ 23. Jones additionally argues that he is a third party beneficiary of the lease agreement. This Court has previously held [t]he right of a third party beneficiary to maintain an action on the contract must `spring' from the contract terms ... No right against the contract promisor or promisee is acquired by a mere incidental beneficiary. Trammell v. State, 622 So.2d 1257, 1260 (Miss.1993). The parties to the lease agreement in the instant case did not specifically intend to benefit Jones through providing an option to purchase tail insurance. Jones was at most an incidental beneficiary of the insurance coverage contemplated by the parties. The contract simply does not support Jones's argument that he acquired third party beneficiary status via the lease agreement. ¶ 24. Further, since no gap existed after the Commencement Date of the lease, BMH was not obligated to purchase tail insurance for the benefit of Golden Triangle. Consequently, BMH was properly dismissed from the suit.