Opinion ID: 1435238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Proper Assignment of Burdens of Proof

Text: State Farm contends that the district court erred in assigning the parties' respective burdens of proof under the open peril coverage for the residence and the named peril coverage for the personal property. Under Mississippi law, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving his right to recover under an insurance policy. Britt v. Travelers Insurance Co., 566 F.2d 1020, 1022 (5th Cir.1978). For named peril coveragehere Coverage B-Personal Propertythe plaintiff has the burden of proving that any losses were caused by a peril covered by the policy. Lunday v. Lititz Mut. Ins. Co., 276 So.2d 696, 699 (Miss.1973). Under open peril coveragehere Coverage A-Dwellingthe plaintiff still has the basic burden of proving his right to recover. Britt, 566 F.2d at 1022. However, under open peril coverage the insurer bears the burden of proving that a particular peril falls within a policy exclusion, and must plead and prove the applicability of an exclusion as an affirmative defense. Leonard, 499 F.3d at 429; see also Britt, 566 F.2d at 1022. State Farm argues that once an insurer has provided evidence that an item of claimed damage resulted at least in part from an excluded peril, the burden shifts to the insured to produce evidence as to what portion of the damages were caused by perils covered by the policy. However, the parties here entered into a High-Low Agreement under which the Tuepkers will, for specified consideration varying in amount depending on the outcome of this appeal, release State Farm from all claims related to this case at the conclusion of all appeals, so this case will never return to the district court for an actual trial. [11] Thus, the questions that the parties raise regarding the burden of proof are not relevant to the case and controversy at issue in this court, and we will not expand upon previous precedents regarding those issues.