Opinion ID: 1795117
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court's holding was a proper adjudication of the plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment.

Text: ¶ 14. Although Issue I is dispositive of this case, we will address Issue II in an attempt to offer guidance to the trial bench and bar in future declaratory-judgment actions. South Carolina argues that the trial judge erred in holding that the insurance policy does or may cover the Keymons' claims. Again, the trial judge stated in his Order: THIS CAUSE came before this Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment to determine whether South Carolina Insurance Company's contract of insurance with its insured, McKee's Stateline, covers the Plaintiff Meranda Keymon's claims against the insured. After hearing oral arguments on the issue and having read the briefs from both parties, the Court is of the opinion that the South Carolina Insurance Company policy does or may cover the claims or some of the claims of the Plaintiff as raised in the Complaint. (Emphasis added). With the utmost respect for the learned trial judge in today's case, we are constrained to find that the nebulous language in his order that the policy does or may cover the claims at issue, was contrary to the provisions of Miss. R. Civ. P. 57, which states that [t]he judgment in a declaratory relief action may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect. (Emphasis added). As the word may is neither affirmative nor negative, the trial judge should have stated that the policy of insurance either did or did not cover the claims. Therefore, we likewise find that this issue has merit.