Opinion ID: 27181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 394 So. 2d at 176.

Text: Nationwide’s policy excludes coverage for bodily injury suffered by relatives who live in Berthelot admits that the policy excludes the insured’s household. The district court coverage for relatives living in his household found that this family household exclusion but argues, first, that Woodcock lived in the prevents Woodcock from recovering and that house only temporarily, and, second, that the the Mississippi Supreme Court would consider policy’s failure to distinguish between the family household exclusion valid and temporary and permanent residence is consistent with public policy. Berthelot argues ambiguous. Both arguments lack merit. that the court erred by concluding that Woodcock fell within the exclusion and that Berthelot explains that Woodcock planned the family household exclusion violates to stay only until he recovered from surgery. Mississippi public policy. She sometimes slept in a travel trailer, she rented a post office box, and she maintained When sitting in diversity, federal courts travel memberships. Despite all of these facts, have an obligation to apply state law as even Berthelot admits that Woodcock lived interpreted by the highest court in the state. with the Berthelots. The policy applies to all Doddy, 101 F.3d at 461. If the state supreme relatives living in the household, and court has not decided an issue, we should Woodcock lived in their household at the time make an Erie guess by predicting what that of the accident. Berthelot does not point to court would do. Washington v. Dep’t of any Mississippi law that would cabin the clause Transp., 8 F.3d 296, 299-300 (5th Cir. 1993). to temporary rather than permanent residents. We review the district court’s interpretation of When asked to define similar terms like “household resident” in other insurance 3 Experts can only testify about legal issues tied coverage disputes, Mississippi courts have to factual disputes and subsidiary to the adopted a broad definition. For example, a factfinder’s ultimate question. C.P. Interests, Inc. college child away at school still resides with v. Cal. Pools, Inc., 238 F.3d 690, 699 (5th Cir. both of his adult parents. Aetna Cas. and Sur. 2001). Co. v. Williams, 623 So. 2d 1005, 1009-10 3 (Miss. 1993). Adult married children valid.4 “temporarily staying” at their parents’ homes also count as residents for the purpose of The abrogation of spousal and family iminsurance coverage. Johnson v. Preferred munity does not compel the Mississippi Risk Auto. Ins. Co., 659 So. 2d 866, 872-75 Supreme Court to overrule Thompson and (Miss. 1995). Finally, a child over whom Perry. The abrogation of immunity eliminated divorced parents have custody still resides with a mandatory, judicial barrier to tort remedies her mother as she drives the child to enter her among family members. Ales, 650 So. 2d at father’s custody. Thompson v. Miss. Farm 485-86; Glascox, 614 So. 2d at 911; Burns, Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 602 So. 2d 855, 856-57 518 So. 2d at 1211. Thompson and Perry (Miss. 1992). rested on the freedom of strangers, the insurance company and insured, to define the In these cases, expanding the definition of scope of their contractual liabilities ex ante. resident expanded the scope of coverage, but Thompson, 602 So. 2d at 857-58; Perry, 170 under Berthelot’s policy, expanding the So. 2d at 630. Although the Mississippi definition of “insured,” would, in most cases, Supreme Court has decided that family reduce the scope of coverage. We see no immunities cannot bar suit for unforeseen reason, however, why that should matter. accidents and unanticipated losses, this does not logically require prohibiting family B. members and insurers from limiting the scope The Bartholets argue the Mississippi of coverage contractually. Supreme Court would find the family household exclusion clause invalid because AFFIRMED. that court has abrogated the doctrines of parental and spousal immunity, Ales v. Ales, 650 So. 2d 482 (Miss. 1993) (parents suing child); Glascox ex rel. Denton v. Glascox, 614 So. 2d 906 (Miss. 1993) (child suing parent); Burns v. Burns, 518 So. 2d 1205 (1988) (wife suing parent). The Bartholets, however, cannot point to a single court that has applied Mississippi law to invalidate a family household exclusion. 4 Warren v. United States Fidelity & Guar. The Mississippi Supreme Court has twice Co., 797 So. 2d 1043, 1045-46 (Miss. Ct. App. upheld the validity of these exclusions, 2001) (applying family household exclusion and refusing to adopt strained interpretation because of emphasizing that the insurer and insured public policy); Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Powell, 83 should have the contractual freedom to alter F. Supp.2d 749, 751 (N.D. Miss. 1999) the scope of coverage. Thompson, 602 So. 2d (explaining validity of exclusion clause); Amer. at 857-58; Perry v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Fire & Indem. Co. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. Co., 170 So. 2d 628, 630 (Miss. 1965). Every 198CV258, 2000 WL 991626,  (N.D. Miss. other court that has applied Mississippi law to June 26, 2000) (unpublished) (noting that parties family household exclusions has found them agreed that exclusionary language is “valid and enforceable”). 4