Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

394 So. 2d 867

Docket No. 52325.

Anthony v. Frith

Carol Ann ANTHONY v. Clayton FRITH and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided January 21, 1981.

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1981-01-21

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[i]t was not against public policy to require the carrier to pay punitive damages.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including USF&G CO. v. Omnibank, 914 So. 2d 698 - Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dale

“Helen and Jerry Daughdrill had two automobile policies of insurance issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company insuring their 1979 Aspen automobile. Under the Uninsured Motorist Endorsement of the first policy, the insureds were afforded bodily injury coverage in an amount not to exceed $25,000 per person, or $50,000 per accident, and property damage coverage in an amount not to exceed $5,000 per accident. The Uninsured Motorist Endorsement stated that State Farm would "pay damages for bodily injury and property damage an insured is legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle." ... While both policies would aggregate, or "stack," the inclusion of the other policy here is not necessary for a resolution of the issue of coverage. On February 14, 1981, in Pascagoula, Mississippi, while driving the vehicle covered by the insurance policies, Helen B. Daughdrill was struck from the rear by an automobile owned and operated by an uninsured motorist, Audie Hacker. As a result of this accident, she suffered personal injuries as well as property damage to her vehicle. Subsequent investigation revealed that Audie Hacker (1) was legally intoxicated at the time of the accident and (2) was operating his vehicle without a valid drivers license due to a prior conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol. After this accident, the Daughdrills demanded from State Farm both actual and punitive damages under the Uninsured Motorist ”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 474 So. 2d 1048 - State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Daughdrill

Relies on Northwestern National Casualty Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin v. Edward A. McNulty and Walter Scott Smith · Lazenby Ex Rel. Lazenby v. Universal Underwriters Insurance · 209 Pa. Super. 200 - Esmond v. LISCIO

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-01-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably Mazza v. Medical Mut. Ins. Co. of NC (1984), 168 W. Va. 172 - Hensley v. Erie Insurance Co. (1981)

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions

1201981199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Willard L. McIlwain, Jr., McIlwain & Cox, Greenville, for appellant.

¶2Philip B. Terney, Robertshaw & Merideth, Greenville, for appellee.

¶3Before ROBERTSON, P.J., and BROOM and HAWKINS, JJ.

¶4HAWKINS, Justice, for the Court:

¶5This case is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Washington County. On July 28, 1979, Clayton Frith, while driving an automobile and insured under a conventional automobile liability insurance policy issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm), struck Carol Ann Anthony, who was walking in a parking area of a shopping center. Frith was intoxicated and Miss Anthony was injured.

¶6She sued, and upon a jury verdict so finding, secured a judgment against Frith for $1,500 in compensatory damages, and $3,500 in punitive damages. No appeal was taken by the defendant.

¶7State Farm paid the compensatory damages, but refused to pay the punitive damages. *868 A writ of garnishment was issued against State Farm, and upon a hearing the circuit judge ruled it was against public policy to require the insurance carrier to pay punitive damages, and dismissed the writ. Miss Anthony appeals.

¶8The insurance policy contains the following pertinent provisions:

COVERAGE A — BODILY INJURY LIABILITY
… *
To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of
(A) bodily injury sustained by other persons, and .. . caused by accident ...; and to defend with attorneys selected by and compensated by the company, any suit against the insured alleging such bodily injury or property damage and seeking damages which are payable hereunder even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent; but the company may make such investigation, negotiation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient. (Italics in policy).

¶9The trial court was of the opinion the terms of the policy covered punitive damages as well in this instance, although it found it unnecessary to pass upon the contract in view of its finding of a public policy inhibition preventing recovery. We likewise agree the terms of the policy cover punitive damages as well as compensatory damages in this case.

¶10As to there being any public policy in this state against allowing recovery for punitive damages in a case as this under the terms of an insurance contract as set forth herein, however, we disagree with the trial court and find it was not against public policy to require the carrier to pay punitive damages.

¶11There is a division of authority among various states on this question, and cogent arguments support opposing points of view.[1] We believe the better reasoned view is to hold it was not against public policy in this case to require the carrier to pay punitive damages.

¶12REVERSED AND RENDERED WITH JUDGMENT HERE FOR APPELLANT.

¶13PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P.JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶14[1] The point raised by this appeal is of first impression in this state. The question is addressed in the following authorities:

¶15Against Public Policy:

¶16Ging v. American Liberty Ins. Co.,423 F.2d 115 (5th Cir.1970).

¶17American Surety Co. of N.Y. v. Gold,375 F.2d 523 (10th Cir.1967).

¶18Northwestern National Casualty Co. v. McNulty,307 F.2d 432 (5th Cir.1962).

¶19Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. U.S. Concrete Pipe,369 So.2d 451 (Fla.App. 1979).

¶20Gleason v. Fryer,30 Colo. App. 106, 491 P.2d 85 (1971).

¶21Brown v. Western Casualty & Surety Co.,484 P.2d 1252 (Colo. App. 1971).

¶22Padavan v. Clemente,43 A.D.2d 729, 350 N.Y.S.2d 694 (1973).

¶23Esmond v. Liscio,209 Pa. 200, 224 A.2d 793 (1967).

¶24Nicholson v. American Fire & Casualty Ins. Co.,177 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1965).

¶25Crull v. Gleb,382 S.W.2d 17 (Mo. App. 1964).

¶26Universal Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Tenery,96 Colo. 10, 39 P.2d 776 (1934).

¶271 R. Long, The Law of Liability Insurance 1.27 (1966).

¶2828 Hastings Law Journal 431 (1976).

¶29Not Against Public Policy:

¶30Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. v. Daniel,246 Ark. 849, 440 S.W.2d 582 (1969).

¶31Carroway v. Johnson,245 S.C. 200, 139 S.E.2d 908 (1965).

¶32Lazenby v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.,214 Tenn. 639, 383 S.W.2d 1 (1964).

¶33Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hood,110 Ga. 855, 140 S.E.2d 68 (1964).

¶34Davis v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange,356 Mich. 454, 96 N.W.2d 760 (1959).

¶35American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Werfel,231 Ala. 285, 164 So. 383 (1935).

¶367 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 4312 (Supp. 1972).

¶379 Cumberland Law Review 487 (1978).

/394/so2d/867 · .json · Public domain