Opinion ID: 1887506
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court judge properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment concerning the insurance coverage issue.

Text: ¶ 5. We have continually held that Summary Judgment under Rule 56 M.R.E. cannot be proper when a genuine issue of material fact exists. Brown v. Credit Center, Inc., 444 So.2d 358 (Miss.1983); Owen v. Pringle, 621 So.2d 668 (Miss.1993). However, the rule itself demands diligence upon the part of the nonmoving party. An adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings... M.R.E. 56(e), and the nonmover must establish a genuine issue of material fact by means allowable under the Rule. Lyle v. Mladinich, 584 So.2d 397, 398 (Miss.1991). When this Court is faced with an appeal of summary judgment, we must review the evidence de novo. Allen v. Mac Tools, Inc., 671 So.2d 636 (Miss. 1996). ¶ 6. Appellant asserts that without a legally recognized definition of the terms riot and civil commotion, that a genuine issue must exist. This premise is a weak defense and is not necessarily true. Courts are often charged with interpreting enigmatic areas within the law. This is the primary function of the judicial branch. Though clearly written statutes are preferred, in the absence of such, we, as judges, must apply consistent legal principles bound by common sense. The trial judge in the case sub judice did not have to define the elements of a riot. He merely was faced with determining whether or not there had actually been one. In coming to his conclusion, the judge reviewed the evidence before him and found that Ms. Blackledge had failed to establish that anything other than malicious mischief or vandalism had taken place. Our task, however, is not so simple. This Court must determine what exactly a riot or civil commotion is, so that we then may review the court below and determine if error was indeed committed. ¶ 7. When terms in an insurance contract are ambiguous, the interpretation of those terms falls to the court. McFarland v. Utica Fire Ins. Co., 814 F.Supp. 518 (S.D.Miss.1992). This is so because holders of insurance policies are not expected to be word-smiths, schooled in the craft of lexicology, and because the law disfavors subtle definitions of common words which but promise to confuse even the educated and frustrate the unlearned. Id. at 525. When we determine the meaning of these words, we have held that terms used in an insurance policy should be understood in their plain, ordinary, and popular sense rather than in a philosophical or scientific sense. Hart v. North Am. Accident Ins. Co., 154 Miss. 400, 405, 122 So. 471, 472 (1929). In the case sub judice, we have two lay opinions in evidence which should indicate the ordinary interpretation of the word. Undersheriff Pennington testified that he was very familiar with the neighborhood in question and knew of no riots. Additionally, Deputy Ecklund testified that his investigation did not reveal any evidence of a riot or civil commotion. Certainly these members of law enforcement, whose job it is to quell civil unrest, would recognize a riot if one did in fact occur. It is not enough for us, however, to say that we know a riot when we see it. We must attempt to define the term to avoid further confusion. ¶ 8. Various definitions of riot abound in American jurisprudence and elsewhere. Mississippi, however, has a dearth of case law in this area. Though certainly not binding upon us, we think it wise to consult the ultimate authority, English common law, from whence the term originated. Hawkins in his Pleas to the Crown defines a riot as: A tumultuous disturbance of the peace by three or more persons assembling together of their own authority, with an intent mutually to assist one another against any one who shall oppose them in the execution of some enterprise of a private nature, and afterward actually executing the same in a violent and turbulent manner, to the terror of the people, whether the act itself was lawful or unlawful. Id. cited in Walter v. Northern Ins. Co. of New York, 370 Ill. 283, 18 N.E.2d 906, 908 (1938). Another definition from the mother country states: It is necessary that there be three or more persons tumultuously assembled of their own authority with intent mutually to assist one another against all who shall oppose them in the doing either of an unlawful act of a private nature or of a lawful act in a violent and tumultuous manner. Greenleaf on Evidence, 16th ed., sec. 216, cited in Walter v. Northern Ins. Co. of New York, 370 Ill. 283, 18 N.E.2d 906, 908 (1938). To constitute a riot, it is not enough that criminal activity be seen or overheard. Nor can a stealthy act of destruction escalate to riot, even if the destruction causes a later public disturbance. Providence Washington Insurance Co. v. Lynn, 492 F.2d 979 (1st Cir.1974). ¶ 9. As we formulate our definition, we acknowledge that riots or civil commotions can vary in size and intensity, and that it is difficult to devise a meaning that will cover every situation. This being said, we recognize at least four necessary elements, 1) unlawful assembly of three or more people (or lawful assembly that due to its violence and tumult becomes unlawful), 2) acts of violence, and 3) intent to mutually assist against lawful authority. The common law clearly indicates that lawful authority is not limited to official law enforcement, but extends to those whose rights are or may be injured and who seek to protect those rights. In addition, there must be some degree of 4) public terror. We include this element to prevent incorrect prosecution under riot, when a more fitting charge is available, and the crime or violence is of a more limited, private nature. Without the element of public terror, any minor public disturbance could legally be a riot. Though not identical, several of these elements have been adopted by our sister state in State of North Carolina v. Hoffman and elsewhere. 199 N.C. 328, 154 S.E. 314, 316 (1930). ¶ 10. Turning once again to the case at hand, the alleged rioters satisfy the elements of unlawful assembly and violent action due to their trespass in and destruction of the home. Appellant argues that there was also public terror, yet those neighbors who were allegedly terrorized continued to live in their homes while this activity continued for months. Their main complaint was that they had trouble sleeping, not from fear, but due to the noise. This Court will never apply legal logic that is totally devoid of reason. Obviously, the terror to the neighborhood was not enough for the area residents to flee or substantially fear for their lives or property, which would be a likely response to a true riot. Rather, it seems to be more of an inconvenience than anything. As to the final, yet most important, element, there is no evidence of mutual assistance against lawful authority. Quite to the contrary, the witnesses upon which appellant relies indicated that when law enforcement would respond to their complaints, these trespassers would scatter to the woods at first glimpse of the police. This action is not indicative of coordinated resistance. In a similar case, Adamson v. City of New York, 188 N.Y. 255, 80 N.E. 937 (1907), a crowd virtually demolished a building, and upon the approach of police, the assembly immediately dispersed. The trial court found this to be trespass and larceny rather than a riot. In light of our test, the riot which Blackledge alleges to have occurred cannot be recognized as such when it fails these last two elements. ¶ 11. As for the term commotion, Black's Law Dictionary, defines it as an infraction of civil order not attaining the status of war or an armed insurrection. Id. 5th Ed. at 253. This is a less involved definition but is essentially the same as for riot. We find that the terms riot and (civil) commotion are legally synonymous and the same standard should be used to determine both. ¶ 12. We are not unsympathetic to Ms. Blackledge's loss. Yet we may not ignore the fact that she chose the types of perils she wanted to insure her property against. Even the most cursory glance at the policy statement reveals the classifications of coverage she had opportunity to obtain. She elected Fire and Extended Coverage, but decided to save money in premiums by opting against Vandalism or Malicious Mischief. Unfortunately for her, this claim falls squarely under the one type of coverage she chose to forego. For her lack of foresight, we cannot punish her insurer.