Opinion ID: 861203
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Your Relatives; and

Text: 4. Any other person occupying your car, a temporary substitute car, a newly acquired car . . . . In the policy, You is defined as the named insured listed on the declarations page of the policy, i.e., Hubert Williams. Your car is defined under the State Farm policies as the car or the vehicle described on the declarations page. ¶20. Box was not occupying the cars described on the declarations pages of the Williamses' other policies. She also is not the named insured under the policies, nor is she the spouse or resident relative of the named insured. Therefore, under the clear policy terms, Box does not meet the definition of an insured. This identical policy language was considered by this Court, in this same context, in State Farm v. Davis, 613 So. 2d 1179 (Miss. 1992). ¶21. The Mississippi Legislature in the Uninsured Motorist Act did not choose to define insured so broadly as to potentially include persons situated the same as Box is in this case. Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-103(b) (1972) defines insured as: (1) The named insured, and if a resident of the same household, (2) the spouse of the named insured and relatives of either, who uses, with consent expressed or implied of the named insured, the motor vehicle to which the policy applies, and a guest in such motor vehicle to which the policy applies. . . . (emphasis added). Applying this definition requires a finding that Box does not qualify under the Uninsured Motorist Act as an insured under the two additional State Farm policies. ¶22. The trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm as there were no genuine issues of material fact. State Farm issued separate policies to the Williams family, each covering a different vehicle. Box, as a passenger in one of the Williamses' cars, and not a member of the Williams household nor a named insured, did not meet the definition of an insured under the State Farm policies issued to the Williams family covering the vehicles not involved in the accident in question. As such, Box was not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage and summary judgment was proper. Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. v. Curtis, 678 So. 2d 983, 988 (Miss. 1996); Meadows v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 634 So. 2d 108, 111 (Miss. 1994). ¶23. In order to have a valid claim for uninsured motorist coverage, the claimant must qualify as an insured under the policy or under the statute. In this case, there is no dispute that under both the legislative and policy provisions, Box does not meet the definition of an insured for the purposes of recovering uninsured motorist benefits. Because she fails to satisfy these requirements, this Court must affirm the lower court's grant of summary judgment and deny stacking of the other coverages at issue. Curtis, at 987-89.