Opinion ID: 535631
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: We Will Defend

Text: 28 We have the right and duty to defend, at our expense, any claim, proceeding or suit against you for damages payable by this insurance. 29 . . . . . 30 We have no duty to defend a claim, proceeding or suit that is not covered by this insurance. 31 Southern Guaranty argues that Corn and Honeycutt's allegations of assault and battery were not covered as bodily injuries under this policy because Corn and Honeycutt alleged that the assault and battery resulted in purely emotional rather than physical or bodily injury. We disagree. 32 In determining an insurer's duty to defend its insured, Mississippi has adopted the allegations of the complaint rule. J.C. Meng v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 626 F.Supp. 1237 (S.D.Miss.1986). Under this rule an insurer's duty to defend an action against its insured is measured by the allegations in the plaintiff's pleadings regardless of the ultimate outcome of the action. While Corn and Honeycutt's complaint does not expressly allege that either of them was injured as a result of the assault and battery by Robert Thompson, paragraph 21 of the complaint alleges that Debra Corn and Peggy Honeycutt have suffered physical pain as well as embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress. (Emphasis added). We agree with the district court that this allegation of physical pain is sufficient, in connection with the allegations of continued and persistent grabbing and assault and battery, to allege bodily injury 1 under the policy. Since a claim for bodily injury was made under the policy, we conclude that the district court correctly found that under Mississippi law Southern Guaranty was required to assume the defense of these claims. 2