Opinion ID: 551306
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Uninsured Motorist Coverage for Third Party Decedents

Text: 12 Mrs. Delancey's argument follows a progression from the language of the uninsured motorist provisions at issue, to the public policy behind Mississippi's uninsured motorist statute, to the cause of action provided by Mississippi's wrongful death statute. Policyholders' uninsured motorist provisions provide that they are legally entitled to recover because of bodily injury to an insured where the injury is caused by an uninsured motorist. It is not disputed that policyholders are insureds under their insurance policies. The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that uninsured motorist insurance is designed to provide innocent injured motorists a means of compensation for injuries which they receive at the hands of an uninsured motorist. Wickline v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 530 So.2d 708, 711 (Miss.1988). Because of their familial relationship to decedent, policyholders have a cause of action for damages under the Mississippi wrongful death statute against the party negligently causing her death, in this situation the underinsured motorist. Mrs. Delancey concludes that policyholders are entitled to coverage under the uninsured motorist provisions of their policies for their injuries resulting from decedent's death and received at the hands of an uninsured motorist. 13 In Wickline, the mother and sister of decedent, who was killed while a passenger in an underinsured automobile as result of the negligence of the driver, sued for recovery under the uninsured motorist provisions of the insurance policy covering that automobile. This policy stated that it provided uninsured motorist coverage to  '(1) you or any family member, (2) any other person occupying your covered auto; (3) any person for damages that person is entitled to recover because of bodily injury to which this coverage applies sustained by a person described in (1) or (2) above.'  Id. at 714. The court also observed that Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 83-11-103(b) defines insured as  'a guest in such motor vehicle to which the policy applies, or the personal representative of [such guest].'  Id. The court went on to hold: The ... policy in issue applied to [the vehicle].... [Decedent] was a guest in that motor vehicle. [Plaintiffs] ... are her personal representatives and are thus 'insureds' within Sec. 83-11-103(b). Id. 14 Decedent's status as an insured is a necessary condition of the Wickline court's finding that plaintiffs could recover as insureds under the policy, as indicated by the court's reasoning in holding that the per person liability limits of the uninsured motorist policy applied to decedent and not separately to each plaintiff. The court held that the wrongful death statute provides a derivative action by the beneficiaries, and those beneficiaries stand in the position of their decedent. Id. at 715. The court accordingly limited the plaintiffs' recovery to that amount to which [decedent] would have been entitled, to be shared equally between them. Id. 15 In Gillespie v. Southern Farm Bur. Cas. Ins. Co., 343 So.2d 467 (Miss.1977), the Mississippi Supreme Court denied recovery because the decedent was not an insured under the uninsured motorist policy sued on. In Gillespie, the plaintiffs, children of the decedent, sued under the uninsured motorist provisions of their own insurance policies. The decedent was not an insured under those policies. 16 The Gillespie plaintiffs claimed that they could recover as insureds by reason of injuries or death to a third party who was not an insured based on the following provision of Mississippi's uninsured motorist statute: 17 [n]o automobile liability insurance policy or contract shall be issued or delivered after January 1, 1967, unless it contains an endorsement or provisions undertaking to pay the insured all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages for bodily injury or death from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle. Gillespie, 343 So.2d at 469-70 (quoting Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 83-11-101). 18 Although this provision of the statute does not explicitly require that the injury for which the insured shall recover be to the insured, the policies at issue in Gillespie did so require. 2 Plaintiffs there argued that the statute mandated coverage for injuries to insured and noninsured alike, and that the restriction in the policies therefore conflicted with the statute. The Gillespie court disagreed and found no conflict between the provision of the statute and the provision of the policy in holding that [t]he injuries or death, because of an uninsured motorist, must be to the named policyholder, his or her spouse or a relative of either, while a member of the household of the named policyholder. Gillespie, 343 So.2d at 470 (emphasis in original); see also Lafleur v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 385 So.2d 1241, 1245 (La.Ct.App.) (Louisiana uninsured motorist statute did not mandate coverage for what an insured may be legally entitled to recover as his 'wrongful death' damages, sustained because of the death of some third person.), cert. denied, 392 So.2d 684 (La.1980). 19 Wickline and Gillespie must be taken as rejecting Mrs. Delancey's argument. In Wickline, the plaintiffs were insureds only by reason of the fact that decedent was an insured under the uninsured motorist policy sued on. Had the decedent not been an insured, plaintiffs could not have recovered. In Gillespie, the plaintiffs, who were similarly situated to the policyholders in the case at bar, were denied coverage under their uninsured motorist policies because the decedent was not an insured and because the injuries referred to in the uninsured motorist policies sued on--and for which plaintiffs sought to recover damages--must be the injuries to an insured. 3 20 We conclude that neither Mississippi's uninsured motorist statute nor its wrongful death statute mandates that policyholders be able to recover under their uninsured motorist policies for their damages resulting from the death of a third person. Policyholders' uninsured motorist coverage is triggered only when policyholders can collect damages by reason of bodily injuries to or death of an insured, and not when they can collect damages by reason of a derivative legal claim on behalf of a third party decedent who is not an insured under the policy sued on. 21 Mrs. Delancey alternatively argues that Pearthree v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 373 So.2d 267 (Miss.1979), held that the definition of insured under uninsured motorist provisions must be expanded to include persons entitled to damages under Mississippi's wrongful death statute. In Pearthree, however, plaintiff recovered only because decedent, whose death entitled plaintiff to damages under Mississippi's wrongful death statute, was herself an insured under the policy. Mrs. Delancey provides no support for her claim that Mississippi's wrongful death statute is intended to expand coverage provided by uninsured motorist provisions of automobile insurance policies. 22