Opinion ID: 1831493
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Any two or more political subdivisions are hereby authorized to enter into agreement and to contract between and among themselves for the purpose of polling their liabilities as a group under this chapter. Such pooling agreements and contracts may provide for the purpose of one or more policies of liability insurance and/or the establishment of self-insurance reserves and shall be subject to approval by the board in the manner provided in subsection (2) and (3) of this section.

Text: Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-17(3), (4), & (5) (emphasis added). ¶ 34. Taylorsville elected not to participate in the Tort Claims Fund and therefore chose to obtain a MMLP policy. The MMLP policy is not an ordinary liability insurance policy as provided for in Section 11-46-17(4). See Perry v. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., 700 So.2d 600, 601 (Miss. 1997); McCoy v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co., 688 So.2d 214 (Miss.1996). Since the policy is not per se liability insurance, then it must be classified as either a form of self-insurance or reserve and/or pooling agreement policy. ¶ 35. In Morgan v. City of Ruleville, 627 So.2d 275 (Miss.1993), this Court addressed whether a City's participation in MMLP was a purchase of insurance sufficient to waive sovereign immunity under Miss.Code Ann. § 21-15-6. Id. at 280. [3] This Court found that the MMLP policy was a form of self insurance, therefore sovereign immunity was not waived under Section 21-15-6. Id. at 281. In so finding, this Court characterized the MMLP as a risk-sharing pool. Id. (citing Antiporek v. Village of Hillside, 114 Ill.2d 246, 102 Ill.Dec. 294, 499 N.E.2d 1307 (1986); Wesala v. City of Virginia, 390 N.W.2d 285 (Minn.Ct.App.1986)). ¶ 36. However, at the time of the Morgan decision, the MTCA was not applicable since it did not take effect as to the liability of political subdivisions until from and after October 1, 1993. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-5(1). This Court's characterization of the MMLP policy as self insurance was not in regards to those insurance options provided in Section 11-46-17. If we are to follow Morgan and find the MMLP policy in question to be self insurance and/or a pooling agreement then the present policy fits under the description of Section 11-46-17(3) or (5) which provides municipalities with the option to provide self insurance through reserves or a pooling agreement. ¶ 37. Morgan is applicable for the holding that a MMLP policy is not a private insurance policy. However, beyond that point Morgan and this case are different. Here we are dealing with a self insurance and/or pooling agreement which specifically lays out the terms of coverage which statutorily may provide for excess coverage over and above the $50,000 statutory liability. The language which specifically so provides for this excess is found in § 11-46-17(3) which states that this shall not limit any cause of action against such political subdivision relative to limits of liability under the Tort Claims Act. This simple sentence proves that the Legislature contemplated and indeed did plan for instances where self insurance policies would provide for recovery being the $50,000 statutory limit. ¶ 38. It is clear from precedent that the MMLP policy is a form of self-insurance As such, the maximum statutory liability of $50,000 under the MTCA does not operate as a cap when the applicable policy provides for payment beyond the $50,000.