Opinion ID: 1817583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does Farm Bureau's Policy Provide Coverage for the Wrongful Death Claim Against Walters?

Text: ¶ 10. This Court has held that a policy should be drafted to accommodate the average person who will give its terms a general reading. Burton v. Choctaw County, 730 So.2d 1, 9 ¶ 35 (Miss.1997). However, accommodation through a general reading should not permit either party to exceed the intent or expectations with which both parties entered the contract. ¶ 11. We must first determine whether the policy is ambiguous. Ambiguity, in its simplest form, is the state of having multiple interpretations. This Court refined the application of ambiguity to instances where an alternate interpretation must be reasonable. J & W Foods Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 723 So.2d 550, 552 (Miss.1998) (holding that ambiguity should be based upon what a reasonable person placed in the insured's position would have understood the terms to mean.) (emphasis added). ¶ 12. This Court has noted that internal conflict or uncertainty can provide the necessary condition precedent to find ambiguity. Crum v. Johnson, 809 So.2d 663, 666 ¶ 8 (Miss.2002). For instance, if one section of a policy conflicts with another, the inherent uncertainty within the policy creates an obscurity and thus ambiguity. Id. This step of the analysis is important because the contract must be viewed as a whole. Continental Cas. Co. v. Pierce, 170 Miss. 67, 154 So. 279, 281 (1934). All parts must be harmonized as much as reasonably possible, and no part or word can be stricken unless the result is fairly inescapable. Id. ¶ 13. We have also recognized that intent is an important consideration when interpreting policy provisions. This Court has noted that it must inquire [into] what the parties [] meant. Practical considerations must be given play, interpreted in the light of the purpose of the policy provision. Fleming v. Travelers Ins. Co., 206 Miss. 284, 39 So.2d 885, 887 (1949). Reviewing the intent and expectations of the parties is necessary considering the policy implications of allowing insurance companies to set their own interpretations because of the unique dynamic of disparate bargaining power between insurance companies and consumers. ¶ 14. Ambiguity however, can not be forced into a policy where there is none. This Court has held that it will not rewrite or deem a contract ambiguous where the language is clear and indicative of its contents. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Glover, 253 Miss. 477, 176 So.2d 256, 258 (1965). If no ambiguity exists, then the contract should be enforced as written. Miss. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 754 So.2d 1203, 1204 (Miss.2000); Gulf Guar. Life Ins. v. Duett, 671 So.2d 1305, 1308 (Miss.1996); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garriga, 636 So.2d 658, 662 (Miss.1994). Finally, if the contract is not ambiguous the Court can not write in terms not contemplated by the parties. Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Harvison, 187 So.2d 847, 853 (Miss.1966). ¶ 15. A close look at the contract and language thereon at issue is appropriate. The exclusion states: Section II  Exclusions Personal Liability [coverage] does not apply to: c. Bodily Injury To Any Insured  `Bodily injury' to you or any `insured' within the meaning of part a. or b. of insured, as defined. The term insured is clear and decisive. The relevant portion of the Farm Bureau policy reads: Insured means you and residents of your household who are: a. Your relatives; or b. Other persons under the age of 21 and in the care of any person named above. (emphasis added). The declarations and application page both list Shirley Walters and Cynthia Guy as named insureds. Agent Kelvin Knotts told Guy that she had to be listed as an insured because her name was on the title to the mobile home. Guy did not refuse and was added as a Named Insured 2 upon Walters' policy. Guy then signed her name on the application which includes an acceptance of terms provision. However, Guy now argues that Farm Bureau's policy implicitly links the insured to the insured location, and therefore Guy can not be an insured because she does not live on or reside at the Walters' residence premises. This argument is without merit because it is not uncommon to purchase insurance for a location which one does not live upon. Guy helped her mother purchase the mobile home and wanted to make sure her investment was protected. Moreover, Guy's admission that she wanted to protect her investment from fire and ensure that Jack Shoemaker did not get any of her mother's money or property suggests both her intent and expectation. Thus, we find that there is no debate that Cynthia Guy was an insured on the Walters/Guy policy. ¶ 16. We note that the definitions section of the contract specifically states: you and your refers to the named insured shown in the Declaration and the spouse if a resident of the same household. Guy's spouse is covered by the policy and the household exclusion applies, thus, there was no duty to defend by Farm Bureau. This Court has held that a person not specifically appearing on the insurance policy, must fall within some type of inclusive language such as your relatives to be considered an insured. J & W Foods Corp., 723 So.2d at 551-52. Because Cynthia Guy is a named insured her spouse also falls within the broad category of your relatives outlined in the definition of insured. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. McGee, 759 So.2d 358, 359-60 (Miss.1999) (Waller, J., specially concurring) (stating blood ties and living under the same roof as the named insured naturally makes the spouse an insured as well); 5 MISS. PRAC. ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MISS. LAW § 40:110 (2001) (noting that protection extends to the named insured, their spouse, and residents of the same household of the named insured who are related). ¶ 17. Cynthia Guy was a co-signing party with her mother Shirley Walters. Cynthia became a named insured on the policy because her name appeared on the mobile home title. The argument that William was not included as Cynthia's spouse on the insurance application does not negate the fact that William was Cynthia's spouse and that the definition section makes reference to spouse and also that he was a relative of Walters through his marriage to Walters' daughter. The application of the term to William is clear and decisive. However, this is not the intended result Guy wants because she wants household to be ambiguous and have William declared not insured. Guy can not have it both ways. Either the policy is clear and William is an insured or the policy is ambiguous and coverage is assumed via the rules of construction. We hold that William Guy is an insured because of his obvious spousal and relative relationship to the named insured Cynthia Guy. Thus, the household exclusion applies, and personal liability coverage does not apply to William Guy. We also hold the term household as used in this contract is not ambiguous. The chancellor erred in not granting summary judgment to Farm Bureau. We also find that the remaining issues are moot and need not be discussed.