Court Opinion

ID: 9891163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 18:00:28.034673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:26.712268
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60183        Document: 00516933415             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/17/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                     ____________                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                                      FILED
                                      No. 23-60183                             October 17, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                      Clerk

   Farmers Direct Property and Casualty Insurance
   Company, formerly known as Metropolitan Direct Property
   and Casualty Insurance Company,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Jonathan Elijah Yates,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 3:22-CV-188
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Plaintiff–Appellant Farmers Direct Property and Casualty Insurance
   Company (“Farmers”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judg-
   ment in favor of Defendant–Appellee Jonathan Elijah Yates and declaration
   that under Mississippi law Yates may “stack” four uninsured motorist

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60183      Document: 00516933415           Page: 2     Date Filed: 10/17/2023

                                     No. 23-60183

   (“UM”) coverage limits for four separate vehicles covered under the auto-
   mobile policy of the owner of a vehicle in which Yates was injured. The par-
   ties filed an agreed stipulation of facts before the district court, stating that
   Yates suffered economic and non-economic damages in excess of $450,000
   as a result of the single–vehicle accident. Yates was riding as a guest passen-
   ger in a vehicle leased by Mitzi and Garry Birks that was being driven around
   by their grandson, Camron Flynn—whose negligence caused the accident.
   Flynn is an “underinsured” motorist because his liability coverage does not
   cover Yates’s total damages.
          At the time of the accident, the vehicle in question was insured under
   a personal automobile insurance policy issued by Farmers, which covered
   four total vehicles belonging to the Birks. As relevant to this appeal, the policy
   states that “[t]he limit of liability shown in the Declarations for ‘each person’
   is the most we will pay for all damages . . . due to [bodily injury] to any one
   person as the result of any one accident . . . is the most we will pay regardless
   of the number of . . . vehicles shown in the Declarations.” Farmers argued
   that this provision expressly limits stacking.
          The district court rejected this argument and found the provision to
   be void because it improperly imposed a blanket ban on stacking by all in-
   sureds in violation of the Mississippi Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility
   Law (“MMVSRL”), which prohibits the limiting of stacking benefits by con-
   tract for Class I insureds, which includes the “named insured, and residents
   of the same household, his spouse and relatives of either, while in a motor
   vehicle or otherwise.” See Miss. Code Ann. § 83-11-101(1); Meyers v. Am.
   States Ins. Co., 914 So. 2d 669, 674 (Miss. 2005) (“we have always recognized
   the inherent entitlement of Class I insureds to stack coverage for which they
   contracted”). Because stacking is mandatory for Class I insureds, and the
   provision makes no distinction between Class I insureds and those

                                           2
Case: 23-60183          Document: 00516933415                Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/17/2023

                                            No. 23-60183

   considered to be Class II insureds 1 because they are only covered because
   they were in the covered vehicle, the district court properly found the pur-
   ported anti-stacking provision to be void as a matter of public policy. See
   Harthcock v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 248 So. 2d 456, 459 (Miss. 1971)
   (“The coverage afforded by these policies is mandatory under the statute and
   may not be cut down by a policy exclusion.”); see also Richards v. Allstate Ins.
   Co., 693 F.2d 502, 505 (5th Cir. 1982).
          Even if the at–issue provision were not void, Farmers failed to include
   an express anti–stacking provision in compliance with Meyers v. Am. States
   Ins. Co., 914 So. 2d 669, 673 (Miss. 2005). Although under Mississippi law
   Farmers could have limited the stacking available to insureds like Flynn—
   who is not a named insured under the policy but used the covered vehicle
   with the Birds’ consent—here the insurance policy contained no express pro-
   vision prohibiting stacking of uninsured motorist benefits. Brewer By &
   Through Brewer v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 328 So. 3d 721, 726
   (Miss. Ct. App.), reh’g denied (Aug. 31, 2021), cert. denied sub nom. Brewer v.
   Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 329 So. 3d 1199 (Miss. 2021) (“[T]he
   absence of an express prohibition on stacking allows Brewer to stack the UM
   benefits of the vehicles insured under the same policy.”); see id. (Valid anti–
   stacking provision must expressly state that coverage “shall not be stacked,
   aggregated, pyramided or otherwise combined.”) (italics in original).
          For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

          _____________________
          1
              It is undisputed that Yates is a Class II insured.

                                                   3