Opinion ID: 1867758
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Mississippi law estops Gulf Guaranty from cancelling credit life insurance coverage after the onset of a disabling and fatal illness.

Text: ¶ 24. Anglin asserts that Gulf Guaranty's cancellation of [Anglin's] policy after the onset of his fatal illness was unconscionable. Clearly, a person diagnosed with the fatal Lou Gehrig's disease could not obtain insurance from any other source much less any other reputable source. In support thereof, he cites Kelley, 389 So.2d at 920. In that case, Kelley was issued a certificate for credit life insurance coverage in connection with an automobile loan on June 28, 1975. See id. at 921. The certificate of insurance provided that the terms of the unattached master policy applied. See id. The master policy provided that: [t]he company may, within ninety (90) days from date of issue of a certificate to a borrower . . . cancel the insurance on the life of such borrower five (5) days after written notice has been mailed to the creditor together with the company's check for the unearned portion of the premium actually paid therefor. Id. (emphasis added). On June 24, 1975, Kelley had been examined by his personal physician and deemed in good health. See id. On July 1, 1975, Kelley suffered a heart attack. See id. When Gulf Guaranty learned of the heart attack on July 18, 1975, it cancelled the policy[,] . . . notified the bank which was the named beneficiary by mail, and refunded the unearned premium. Id. Kelley died on July 24, 1975. See id. Based upon that set of facts, this Court stated: Defendant argues it had the absolute right under the terms of its master policy to cancel the certificate of insurance issued to Kelley within 90 days from the date of issue. Ordinarily, this defense would be upheld; however, in this case the onset of Kelley's fatal illness occurred after the policy was in effect and continued without remission until his death. Considerations of public policy persuade us that, exercise by the insurer of its right to cancel should not be permitted after the onset of a fatal illness and death therefrom, upon the ground of estoppel. . . . . . . Allowing defendant to cancel the policy after Kelley became uninsurable would be unconscionable because Kelley had then reached such a physical condition that he was unable to obtain desirable insurance in any reputable company before his death. Id. at 922 (emphasis added). ¶ 25. In response, Gulf Guaranty initially argues that [e]ven if [Anglin's] argument in this regard had merit, which it does not, [Anglin] did not plead estoppel or public policy in his Complaint. Neither did [Anglin] argue this theory in the court below. Even assuming that the argument is not procedurally barred, however, Gulf Guaranty insists that the conditional nature of the insurance coverage was clearly communicated on the [c]ertificate of [i]nsurance itself, knowledge of which is imputed to the insured. ¶ 26. This Court has been consistent in holding that we need not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal, which practice would have the practical effect of depriving the trial court of the opportunity to first rule on the issue, so that we can then review such trial court ruling under the appropriate standard of review. Alexander v. Daniel, 904 So.2d 172, 183 (Miss.2005). For this reason, this Court concludes that consideration of this issue on appeal is procedurally barred. However, since this case is being remanded for trial, the procedural bar for purposes of consideration on appeal is not a prohibition upon the parties to litigate this issue.