Opinion ID: 1893631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: UM Law

Text: To recover UM benefits provided by an insurance policy, a claimant must first prove that he or she is an insured under either the insurance policy and/or the UM statute. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 613 So.2d 1179, 1179 (Miss. 1992); Gillespie v. Southern Farm Casualty Ins. Co., 343 So.2d 467, 471 (Miss. 1977). Our UM statute, Miss. Code Ann. (1972) § 83-11-101 et seq. (Supp. 1993), provides the following definition for the term insured: As used in this article: (b) The term insured shall mean the named insured and, while resident of the same household, the spouse of any such named insured and relatives of either. .. . Miss. Code Ann. (1972) § 83-11-103 (Supp. 1993). [4] The UM statute and insurance policy are read together in determining whether an individual is an insured entitled to coverage: The question (who is a relative) calls for a reading of policy language, but, as all know by now, the meaning we may find is substantially affected by statute  our Uninsured Motorist Act. Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-101 et seq. (Rev. 1991). By law, a UM insurer may not contract for coverage less than that statutorily required. On the other hand, we have repeatedly recognized that the insurer may provide broader coverage than required by the Act. In the end, we integrate the statute into the policy ... and give the legal text so assimilated the most coherent meaning its words may bear. Insured and its component concept, relative, have no natural definition in uninsured motorist law. Meaning is a function of contract augmented and informed by statute... . Gunn v. Principal Cas. Ins. Co., 605 So.2d 741, 742-43 (Miss. 1992) (citations omitted). Insurance contracts are construed strictly against the insurer and in favor of the policyholder. Mutual Ben. Health & Acc. Assn. v. Blaylock, 163 Miss. 567, 573, 143 So. 406 (1932). In particular, we have held that the language of the Mississippi UM Act must be construed liberally to provide coverage and strictly to avoid or preclude exceptions or exemptions from coverage. Aetna Cas. And Sur. Co. v. Williams, 623 So.2d 1005, 1008 (Miss. 1993), citing Harris v. Magee, 573 So.2d 646 (Miss. 1990); accord Cossitt v. Federated Guaranty Mutual Ins. Co., 541 So.2d 436 (Miss. 1989); Wickline v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co., 530 So.2d 708 (Miss. 1988). This case turns on the interpretation of the word resident as it appears in the Preferred policies and under the UM statute. Where a family member is not a resident of the same household as the insured, UM coverage will be denied. Gunn v. Principal Cas. Ins. Co., 605 So.2d 741, 744 (Miss. 1992).