Opinion ID: 1749386
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the court err in failing to grant the defense motion to dismiss against caroline miller?

Text: Here National argues that the policy provided on its face that Marvin Miller was the insured. Caroline Miller was listed only as the insured spouse. National then argues that by the terms of the policy, the death benefits for the child were payable only to Marvin Miller, if living, and otherwise to Caroline Miller. National asserts that it had no obligation to Caroline Miller except at the death of her husband. We begin by noting that procedurally this argument is barred. Under Standard Life Insurance Co. of Indiana v. Veal, 354 So.2d 239 (Miss. 1977), National should have filed an objection to non-joinder as required by Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-21 (1972). The Court in Veal held that had the non-joinder issue been raised before trial, the plaintiff would have been permitted to amend the declaration. By waiting until after the Millers had rested their case, National forfeited its objection to Mrs. Miller's participating in the suit. Furthermore, the rule in this state is that an application for insurance which is attached to a contract is part of the insurance contract. Interstate Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Flanagan, 284 So.2d 33 (Miss. 1973). Ordinarily where there is an ambiguity between the policy and the application, the terms of the policy will govern, Flanagan; however, this Court has also frequently held that any ambiguities in an insurance contract are to be strongly construed against the insurer. Bellefonte Insurance Co. v. Griffin, 358 So.2d 387 (Miss. 1978); Life and Casualty Ins. Co. of Tenn. v. Kelly, 202 Miss. 319, 32 So.2d 120 (1947). Finally, it is difficult to see any prejudice to National as the result of the failure to dismiss Caroline Miller. She sought no damages peculiar to her. The damages sought were the policy limits and punitive damages. Neither of those amounts were affected by Mrs. Miller's inclusion as a plaintiff. The policy limits were a predetermined figure and, as we have stated in Bankers Life & Casualty Co., supra and Snowden v. Osborne, 269 So.2d 858 (Miss. 1972), punitive damages are in the nature of punishment for the wrongdoing of the defendant and to set an example so as to deter others from similar behavior. The failure of National to timely object to Mrs. Miller's inclusion as a plaintiff and the absence of any prejudice leads us to find no merit to this assignment of error.