Opinion ID: 1607405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether T & M Foods' insurance policy with Evanston covered Kent's automobile.

Text: ¶ 15. The Court of Appeals found that under the Evanston policy, Kent is in no way protected as an insured[;] that Kent was covered only by the Progressive policy; and, therefore, the Whitakers effectively released Kent when they agreed not to execute on his personal assets because there were no other damages to be recovered.  Whitaker, 7 So.3d 952-53, 2007 WL 2772001 at -7, 2007 Miss.App. LEXIS 634, at -15 (emphasis added). The plain language of the September 17, 2002, Settlement Agreement and Release and the provisions of the Evanston policy contradict such a determination. ¶ 16. T & M Foods was the Named Insured on the Non-Owned Automobile Liability Insurance policy with Evanston. The deductible on the policy was  driver's insurance or $1,000 deductible, whichever is greater. (Emphasis added). The policy defined Auto as a non-owned motor vehicle, while used to deliver food on behalf of the Named Insured(s). The policy defined Insured as any person or organization qualifying as an insured in the WHO IS INSURED section[,] and WHO IS INSURED expressly extends to T & M Foods for any covered auto. Regarding coverage, the policy provided that  for any covered auto you don't own, the insurance provided by this policy is excess over any other collectible insurance  and Evanston will pay all sums the insured legally must pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this insurance applies, caused by an accident and resulting from the ... use of a covered auto, in excess of the retention amount stated in the declarations. (Emphasis added). This Court has stated that: [p]ursuant to the application of the common law theory of respondeat superior, an employer is generally held to be vicariously legally responsible for its employees' negligent driving. ... This principle will only have application when the vehicle is driven during the course of the employee's employment or within the scope of the permission given by the employer. Franklin County Mem'l Hosp. v. Miss. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 975 So.2d 872, 875 (Miss.2008) (quoting 8 Lee Russ & Thomas Segalla, Couch on Insurance § 111:42 (2005)). Without question, the subject accident occurred when Kent was operating his personal motor vehicle in the course and scope of his employment as a food-delivery driver for T & M Foods. If the language in an insurance contract is clear and unambiguous, then the court should construe it as written. Jackson v. Daley, 739 So.2d 1031, 1041 (Miss.1999) (citation omitted). The clear and unambiguous language of the Evanston policy provided coverage for Kent's automobile, as it was a non-owned motor vehicle, ... used to deliver food on behalf of the Named Insured. See also Meyers v. Am. States Ins. Co., 914 So.2d 669, 676 (Miss. 2005) (May and Co.'s automobile insurance policy explicitly provides coverage for Meyers' vehicle on its designation page and also makes clear that coverage of Meyers' vehicle is part of the consideration for which May and Co. paid its insurance premium.). Moreover, automobile liability coverage follows the vehicle, not the person.... 12 Lee Russ & Thomas Segalla, Couch on Insurance § 169:109 (2005). [6] Accordingly, the Evanston policy provided coverage for damages because of bodily injury ... caused by an accident and resulting from the use of [Kent's] covered auto[.] Kent's automobile was expressly covered under the four corners of the Evanston policy. In the event that the first release is set aside, this avenue of recovery for the Whitakers would not be foreclosed. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that there were no other damages to be recovered. Whitaker, 7 So.3d 952-53, 2007 WL 2772001 at -7, 2007 Miss.App. LEXIS 634, at -15. The conclusion that the Whitakers effectively had released Kent in the September 17, 2002, Release, see id., is contradicted by the express terms of that instrument.