Opinion ID: 1957121
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Anthony v. Frith

Text: ¶ 8. Commissioner Dale based his denial of the amendatory endorsements on our holding in Anthony v. Frith . In that case, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company refused to pay a punitive damage award against its insured, despite very general language in its policy which provided that State Farm would pay all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay. This Court held that, under such policy terms, it was not against public policy to require State Farm to pay punitive damages. Specifically, this Court stated: As to there being any public policy in this state against allowing recovery for punitive damages in a case as this under the terms of an insurance contract as set forth herein, however, we disagree with the trial court and find it was not against public policy to require the carrier to pay punitive damages. Anthony v. Frith, 394 So.2d 867, 868 (Miss.1981). This Court did not hold that State Farm was required by statute to cover punitive damages. Nor did it hold that an insurance company is prohibited from excluding coverage for punitive damages. Indeed, then-Justice Hawkins, the author of Anthony v. Frith , was later (as Chief Justice of the Court) to state: In Anthony v. Frith we simply took the view that there is no public policy against an insurance policy by its language covering punitive damages. As the author of that opinion, I saw grave ethical problems which might confront a lawyer during trial defending an insured in the absence of clear language in the policy excluding punitive damages. [citation omitted] Nothing in Anthony v. Frith implied that a liability insurance carrier was required to cover punitive damages along with compensatory damages, and in Old Sec. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Clemmer, 455 So.2d 781 (Miss.1984), we clearly held the policy could exclude punitive damages.