Opinion ID: 1703095
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sequential heart royal flush (10, j, q, k, a) progressive jackpot paid in 20 equal annual installments first installment paid upon validation of win.

Text: Kelly maintains that the machine's language sequential heart royal flush progressive jackpot was ambiguous since it did not specify that only an ascending royal flush would qualify for the primary progressive jackpot. IGT, however, contends that the machine's signage was not ambiguous and that the parenthetical language of 10, J, Q, K, A limited the award to only that sequence, read left to right. ¶ 8. IGT further asserts that the decision of the Mississippi Gaming Commission was not supported by substantial evidence, thus making the commission's decision both arbitrary and capricious. In Mississippi Gaming Comm'n v. Freeman , this Court recently held that the proper standard of review is determined by the [Mississippi Gaming Control] Act. 747 So.2d at 240. Consequently, Freeman rejected the substantial evidence standard and held that the any evidence standard should apply due to the plain language of the statute. Id. In the present case, IGT's assertion that a substantial evidence standard should be used is misplaced, and this Court will instead apply the any evidence standard as set forth in Freeman. ¶ 9. We must now address whether any evidence existed to support the commission's conclusion that the signage on the machine was ambiguous. First, Kelly provided the testimony of Jim Spain, a poker expert. Spain testified a sequential royal flush could be displayed in either ascending or descending order, although the most common way of displaying the sequential royal flush was descending. Second, Ames Kerley, an engineer with the Mississippi Gaming Commission and witness for IGT, also testified, I would think that a sequential royal flush could be either unless it is further described. Consequently, there seems to be no dispute on either side that a sequential royal flush can be either ascending or descending. ¶ 10. The dispute thus centers around whether the language on the face of the machine clearly signaled to patrons that only the ascending sequential royal flush, and not the descending royal flush, qualified for the jackpot. Both the Mississippi Gaming Commission and the Harrison County Circuit Court found the machine's signage to be ambiguous. This Court agrees. ¶ 11. IGT argues that the machine's language was not ambiguous because the machine's parenthetical language of 10-J-Q-K-A served to limit the award of the primary progressive jackpot to only that combination, read left to right. Kelly, however, argues that it is common knowledge a sequential royal flush can be either ascending or descending and absent clarifying or limiting words, the parenthetical language of 10-J-Q-K-A serves only as an example of a sequential royal flush. ¶ 12. The machine's signage could reasonably and fairly be interpreted in more than one way. A review of the record indicates that evidence was presented to the Mississippi Gaming Commission which supported the commission's decision. Accordingly, the commission's decisions were neither arbitrary nor capricious and are not within the authority of this Court to overturn. Therefore, this Court affirms the decision of the Harrison County Circuit Court, which found the machine's signage to be ambiguous.