Opinion ID: 1678714
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: were each of the heirs of stacy wickline entitled to recover the per person limits under the aggregated um coverages?

Text: Appellant, in support of the lower court opinion, argues that U.S.F. & G. cannot retreat from the broad language of the UM provision entitling the plaintiffs (Mrs. Wickline and Mrs. Starc) to each recover as a covered person because of injuries sustained by a covered person (Stacy Wickline). Appellee contends that the derivative nature of the plaintiffs' claim prohibits recovery of $10,000 by each plaintiff in this case and that, if UM coverage is available, it is limited to the amount available under the per person limits for Stacy Wickline. The limit of liability set forth in the U.S.F. & G. policy involved in the case at bar reads as follows: LIMIT OF LIABILITY. The limit of bodily injury liability shown in the schedule or in the Declarations for `each person' for Uninsured Motorist Coverage is our maximum limit of liability for all damages for bodily injury sustained by any one person in any one accident. Subject to this limit for `each person', the limit of liability shown in the schedule or in the declarations for `each accident' for Uninsured Motorist Coverage, is our maximum limit of liability for all damages for bodily injury resulting from any one accident. The limit of property damage liability shown in the schedule or in the Declaration for `each accident' for Uninsured Motorists Coverage is our maximum limit of liability for all damages resulting from any one accident. This is the most we will pay regardless of the number of: (1) Covered persons; (2) claims made; (3) vehicles or premiums shown in the declaration; (4) vehicles involved in the accident. (Emphasis supplied). This Court agrees with the cross-appellant U.S.F. & G. that each plaintiff was not entitled to recover per person limits under the policy. The plaintiffs' status as insureds is because of their status as wrongful death beneficiaries of Stacy Wickline under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-13 (Supp. 1987). The wrongful death statute provides a derivative action by the beneficiaries, and those beneficiaries stand in the position of their decedent. The Mississippi Act specifically provides coverage in the case of wrongful death. Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-101(1); Pearthree I, 373 So.2d 267 (Miss. 1979). This holding is in accord with Old Security Casualty Insurance Company v. Clemmer, 455 So.2d 781 (Miss. 1984), in which this Court held that where only one person sustained bodily injury the per person limitation applied. On the contrary, if two or more persons sustain bodily injury, the per occurrence clause of the policy comes into play. In the instant case, the plaintiffs' right of action accrues because of the death of Stacy Wickline and her heirs at law stand in her position in this lawsuit. This Court, therefore, reverses the decision of the trial court insofar as it permitted full recovery by each plaintiff. Their total recovery is limited to that amount to which Stacy Wickline would have been entitled, to be shared equally between them. This decision is in line with our former cases, Pearthree I, supra, and Overstreet v. Allstate Insurance Company, 474 So.2d 572 (1985). In both cases the plaintiffs were wrongful death beneficiaries claiming an equal share. Pearthree, supra, acknowledged that the policy definitions of insureds were broader than that required by the UM statute. The additional policy definition included in Pearthree included a person authorized by law to receive such payment or to a person legally entitled to recover damages which the payment represents. That broad definition of Pearthree and Overstreet is not applicable here. The relevant part of this factual situation is that Wickline, as a passenger, was the one covered person and that benefits available to his heirs are derived from his status and limited to a single covered person's benefits, to be equally shared between them. This Court distinguishes those cases from the situation before us. However, the fact that the plaintiffs in Pearthree and Overstreet acknowledged that their claim was a derivative action is obvious. It is more clearly set forth in Pearthree II, U.S.F. & G. Co. v. Pearthree, 389 So.2d 109 (Miss. 1980), where the plaintiff Pearthree was only one of five wrongful death beneficiaries suing for damages. The widower and three minor children had settled their claim with the insured, and this Court held that Pearthree was not claimant for the other wrongful death beneficiaries, but that her claim was limited as one of five beneficiaries under her pleadings and proof. However, the Court acknowledged that her recovery would not necessarily be limited to a twenty percent recovery of the total amount payable under the policy since the policies in question presented no percentage limitation. The Court noted that this imbalanced payment condition could result when a settlement was made with other beneficiaries without a court administration of the deceased's estate. The insurer had not exhausted its total liability, and therefore, Pearthree's recovery was not limited to one-fifth of the total liability. The Overstreet case represents an opposite situation where the insurer did pay all of its liability to the insured's widow without court administration and the insured's five children sought to share in the benefits. This Court upheld the insurer's right to pay under its contract facility of payment clause to a person authorized to receive the total payment. The opinion declined to address a new argument at the appellate stage regarding the per accident limitation under the policy which might have required the insurer to pay additional monies to the five children. This was the factual situation again because the insurer failed to ascertain the heirs-at-law before payment of benefits to less than all heirs. The facts of these cases, Pearthree and Overstreet, are situations in which multiple legal actions were filed. Such is not the case here. This Court therefore holds that the per person limits of liability apply in this case, rather than per accident. The trial court is therefore reversed and rendered as to this issue on the cross-appeal. The maximum stacked UM coverage available to appellants is $40,000.00.