Tag: UM/UIM

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of October 7, 2025

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions of substance yesterday. There is a divorce case, a timber case, a felony, a visitation/in loco parentis case, an heirship case, and a UM/UIM case with an interesting procedural question.

Hodge v. Hodge, 2024-CA-00745-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancellor’s decision granting the ex-wife’s petition to set aside a final divorce degree arguing that she was forced to sign it under duress, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in finding the Rule 60(b)(4) motion timely, that section 93-5-2(5) did not apply because the complaint was not contested, that the chancellor erred by determining that the final divorce decree should be set aside in part because of the ex-husband’s claim splitting, and that there was not clear and convincing evidence that the ex-husband committed fraud.
(9-0: Lawrence for the Court; Barnes did not participate)

Payne Logging, LLC v. Smith, 2024-CA-00439-COA (Civil – Property Damage)
Affirming the chancellor’s award of monetary damages in a landowner’s claim against a logging company that removed timber off their property without permission while logging a neighbor’s property, holding that the chancery court did not err in applying the statutory guidelines in section 95-5-10.
(10-0: Westbrooks for the Court)

Hall v. State, 2024-KA-00364-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of attempted capital murder, holding the the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and that it was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0: Wilson for the Court)

Edwards v. Johnson, 2023-CA-01271-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancellor’s decision denying a petition to establish visitation by a non-parent, holding that the chancellor erred in applying the doctrine of unclean hands before determining the petitioner’s in loco parentis status and, if necessary, reaching the issue of whether visitation was in the child’s best interest.
(6-3: Carlton for the Court; Weddle concurred in part and dissented in part without writing; Wilson dissented; Emfinger dissented, joined in part by Wilson and Weddle; Lawrence did not participate)

In the Matter of Estate of Lewis: Curry v. Thomas, 2024-CA-00346-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Reversing the chancellor’s decision establishing paternity, holding that the one-year limitation for paternity is self-executing and thus cannot be waived and that the petitioner was barred from asserting an heirship claim because she did not attempt to establish paternity until almost eighteen years after her putative father’s death.
(7-3*: Barnes for the Court; McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing; McDonald concurred in result only without writing; Westbrooks specially concurred, joined by McDonald, McCarty, and Lassitter St Pe’)

Thompson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 2024-CA-00393-COA (Civil – Insurance)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict in favor of a UM carrier, holding that the trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict for the UM carrier because there was no proof that the tortfeasor was an uninsured motorist and UM/UIM status was a question for the jury, that the UM carrier did not waive the argument that UM coverage was not applicable because the carrier did not have a duty to prove that the tortfeastor was an uninsured motorist, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.
(7-3: Barnes for the Court; McDonald dissented without writing; McCarty dissented, joined by Westbrooks and McDonald)

Practice Point – McCarty’s dissent took issue with the directed verdict being granted during the damages phase of trial in front of the jury:

Other Orders

  • Davis v. State, 2023-KA-00884-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Quinn v. State, 2023-KA-01143-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of January 30, 2025

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four opinions today. There was a UM dec action along with three direct criminal appeals. One of the direct criminal appeals resulted in reversal based on an erroneous jury instruction.

Williams v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 2023-CA-01225-SCT (Civil – Insurance)
Affirming the trial court’s decision granting a UM carrier’s motion for summary judgment in a dec action, holding that the UM policy did not unlawfully restrict or reduce coverage mandated by Mississippi’s UM Act and that clear and unambiguous language in the policy excluded ATVs from the term “uninsured motorist.”
(9-0)

Barnett v. State, 2023-KA-00742-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing conviction for sale of meth, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by giving a jury instruction that improperly commented on the weight of the evidence.
(7-2: Randolph dissented, joined by Branning)

N0te – Here is the text of the jury instruction that warranted reversal:

Robinson v. State, 2023-KA-00773-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and rejecting the appellant’s pro se arguments that his appellate counsel were ineffective, that the State committed Brady violations, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.
(9-0)

Kendrick v. State, 2024-KM-00510-SCT (Criminal – Misdemeanor)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision affirming the county court’s decision affirming a municipal court conviction of DUI first offense and possession of drug paraphernalia, holding that the county court did not err in denying a motion to suppress that claimed the traffic stop was illegal.
(8-0: Randolph did not participate)

Other Orders

  • In Re: The Rules of Civil Procedure, 89-R-99001-SCT (granting motion to amend M.R.C.P. 14 to be effective 30 days from the entry of the order on January 27, 2025)
  • In Re: Weaver, 2017-M-00527 (denying misnamed application for leave to seek post-conviction relief in the trial court, finding the application successive and frivious, and warning that future frivolous filings may result in sanctions)
  • Lestrick v. State, 2021-CT-01409-SCT (dismissing cert petition)
  • Gilmer v. Biegel, 2022-CP-00528 (denying motion for citation of contempt and sanctions and ordering payment of sanction)
  • Weatherly v. Weatherly, 2022-CT-00804-SCT (granting cert)
  • Jackson v. State, 2023-CT-00201-SCT (denying cert)
  • Jackson v. State, 2023-CT_201-SCT (denying pro se cert petition)
  • Carpenter v. State, 2023-CT-00580-SCT (denying cert)CT (denying cert)
  • In Re Validation of up to $27,600,000 Trust Certificates Evidencing Proportional Interests in a Lease by The Simpson County School District: Floyd v. Simpson County School Board, 2023-CA-01126-SCT (denying motion for rehearing and amended motion for rehearing)
  • Parker v. Stewart, 2023-CA-01257-SCT (granting motion to dismiss appeal)
  • Parker v. Stewart, 2023-CA-01257 (per curiam affirmance)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of April 6, 2023

I am circling back to pick up the rest of the hand downs that I missed last week. The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down six opinions last Thursday with a couple of reversals. There were two skirmishes in med mal cases, one involved an arbitration agreement and the other the substitution of the administrator of an estate. There is a UM case about the right to UM benefits after cutting off the carrier’s subrogation rights. There is also a sixteenth section land case and what should have been an MTCA case. The Supreme Court also denied a petition for reinstatement to the practice of law.

Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Peteet, 2021-IA-01420-SCT (Civil – Insurance)
Reversing the denial of a motion to dismiss by a UM carrier, holding that the insured’s execution of a settlement agreement with the at-fault driver unlawfully cut off the UM carrier’s right of subrogation and the UM carrier therefore had no duty to pay the UM claim.
(9-0)

Sill v. State, 2021-KA-00317-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of meth, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in his car because the defendant did not prove that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in a stolen vehicle, that the State met its burden to prove construction possession, and that the jury could reasonable infer that the untested substance was of the same substance as what was tested.
(9-0)

Belhaven Senior Care, LLC v. Smith, 2022-CA-00050-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming denial of a motion to compel arbitration, holding that the facility failed to prove that the signatory of the arbitration agreement was the resident’s healthcare surrogate, that the plaintiff was not barred by direct-benefit estoppel from contesting the validity of the arbitration agreement, and that the decdent was not a third-party beneficiary of the agreement.
(9-0)

North Bolivar Consolidated Sch. Dist. v. Jones, 2021-IA-01235-SCT (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the denial of the school district’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the school district’s past acceptance of late rent payments for sixteenth section land were not authorized and could not form the basis of estoppel that would prevent the school district from assessing statutory late-payment penalties.
(9-0)

Morton v. City of Clarksdale, 2022-CA-00216-SCT (Civil – Torts)
Affirming the dismissal of claims that an arrest violated constitutional rights, holding that most of the plaintiff’s claims fell under the MTCA and were barred by the MTCA’s one-year statute of limitations, that the constitutional claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations, and that the malicious prosecution claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations for such claims.
(9-0)

Otuseso v. Estate of Mason, 2021-IA-01099-SCT (Civil – Wills, Trusts and Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision removing the administratrix of an estate who had filed a wrongful death suit against a doctor on behalf of the estate and substituting two heirs-at-law as coadminstrators, holding that the doctor’s motion to intervene in the chancery court proceedings was moot since the chancellor had properly removed the unqualified administrator and appointed successor administrators.
(9-0)

Other Orders

Stewart v. The Mississippi Bar, 2022-BR-00382-SCT (denying fourth petition for reinstatement to the practice of law)

Virden v. Campbell Delong, LLC, 2021-CT-00478-SCT (granting cert)
I put this on the “cert watch” list when the COA opinion was handed down. It is a lawyer fight over money with a 5-5 COA decision that left the trial court’s ruling in place. (My summary of the COA decision is here.)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of February 2, 2023

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One is a consolidated appeal resolving a “circuit split” where two state circuit courts reached opposite conclusions on the same legal issue involving UM coverage for accidents caused by MTCA-immune tortfeasors. (Come for the holding, stay for the strong words about the Fifth Circuit’s earlier Erie-guess on this issue.) The other opinion involves the rights of a successor in title to a reciprocal easement.

Lee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2021-CA-00882-SCT consolidated with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Cooper, 2021-IA-01006-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Resolving a “circuit split” by holding that under the UM statutes (as amended in 2009) the UM carrier was required to provide UM coverage to plaintiffs for damages sustained in collisions with entities afforded immunity under MTCA, reversing summary judgment in one case and affirming the denial of summary judgment in the other case.
(7-0: Chief Justice Randolph and Justice Beam did not participate.)

Practice Point – The Supreme Court specifically addressed the limited precedential value of this decisions:

Note – The Supreme Court would like us to remember that the Fifth Circuit’s Erie-guesses are not binding precedent in Mississippi. McGlothin is a Fifth Circuit opinion from 2019 that the Mississippi Supreme Court did not exactly agree with:

So what does the Mississippi Supreme Court do?

You can read that approach (that involves the doctrine of in pari materia) in the opinion.

TransMontaigne Operating Company, L.P. v. Loresco I, LLC, 2021-CA-00980-SCT (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancellor’s denial of the plaintiff’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief, holding that the express language of a reciprocal easement was specific and clear and allowed the successor in title to the easement to full use of the easement per its terms and did not limit the successor to the scope of actual use by the predecessor in title.
(7-2: Justice Griffis dissented, joined by Justice King.)

Other Orders

In Re: The Rules of Civil Procedure, 89-R-99001-SCT (granting motion to amend Miss. R. Civ. P. 45 – *An order amending Rule 45 was also on the hand down list last week. The link to the order on the hand down page last week is no longer active, but you can see a copy of the PDF that was handed down last week on my post from last week. I quickly compared the two and didn’t immediately see any differences except the date that the amendment will go into effect based on the date the orders were entered.)

In Re: Advisory Committee on Rules, 89-R-99016-SCT (appointing County Judge Carol Jones Russell of Forrest Countyas a member of the Supreme Court of Mississippi Advisory Committee on Rules on the nomination by the Mississippi Conference of County Court Judges)

Fannings v. State, 2015-M-01061 (denying petition for application for leave to proceed in the trial court, finding the petition frivolous, and warning against further frivolous filings)

Cook v. State, 2017-M-00455 (denying motion for PCR, finding the filing frivolous, and restricting the plaintiff from further filings in forma pauperis)

Moffett v. State, 2021-CT-00622-SCT (denying cert)

Billie v. State, 2022-M-00416 (denying petition for application for leave to proceed in the trial court, finding the petition frivolous, and warning against further frivolous filings)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of May 12, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down six opinions today with subject matter covering capital murder conviction and death penalty, UM/UMI coverage, election contests, appellate procedure, wills, and judicial estoppel.

Johnson v. Brock, 2020-EC-00982-SCT (Civil – Election Contest/Summary Judgment)
Affirming summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ contest the results of a city counsel election, holding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden in opposing summary judgment where the plaintiffs’ briefs relied upon affidavits that were not in the record and they otherwise failed to come forward with evidence that there were voting irregularities that led to their election losses.
(Justice King did not participate.)

Bufkin v. Geico Insurance Agency, Inc., 2021-CA-00251-SCT (Civil – Insurance/UM/UIM)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the UM carrier, declining to overrule precedent holding that an employee is not legally entitled to make a claim under their employers’ underinsured motorist coverage.
(All justices concurred.)

Note – The plaintiff argued Mississippi’s law on this question of statutory interpretation was the minority approach and urged the Supreme Court to adopt the majority view. The Supreme Court declined to do so:

McRae v. Mitchell, 2021-IA-00101-SCT (Civil – Other/Interlocutory Appeal/Appellate Procedure)
Dismissing an appeal from a non-final judgment of the chancery court, explaining that the Mississippi Supreme Court treated the notice of appeal as a petition for interlocutory appeal and granted the petition, but held that it lacked jurisdiction since the notice of appeal was not filed within 21 days of after the entry of the non-final judgment.
(Chief Justice Randolph did not participate.)

Clark v. State, 2019-DP-00689-SCT (Criminal – Death Penalty – Direct Appeal)
Affirming conviction of capital murder and sentence to death by lethal injection for the slaying of a convenience store clerk in Canton, Mississippi. The issues raised on appeal that the Mississippi Supreme Court addressed were:


(Justice Kitchens dissented, joined by Justice King and Justice Ishee. Justice King dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens and Justice Ishee.)

NOTE – The majority opinion is 99 pages long plus 13 pages of appendices. There are 34 pages of dissents. The curt summary above does not do this opinion justice because I simply do not have the bandwidth to tackle the details of this opinion at this moment.

Estate of Bakarich v. Bakarich, 2020-IA-00339-SCT (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates/Interlocutory Appeal)
Affirming the chancellor’s denial of the co-executrices’ request based on a fee-shifting provision in the will seeking to make a challenger pay the estate’s attorney’s fees in defending challenges to the co-executrices’ actions, but reversing the the chancellor’s decision directing the co-executrices to personally pay the estate’s costs and attorney’s fees associated with the underlying motions and petitions.
(Justice King concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Kitchens. Justice Beam did not participate.)

Jones v. Alcorn State University, 2020-CA-01238-SCT (Civil – Other/Judicial Estoppel)
Affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff’s breach of contract lawsuit, holding that the plaintiff’s lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel because the plaintiff failed to reveal his lawsuit in two bankruptcy filings.
(Justice Maxwell [1] wrote a special concurrence, joined by Chief Justice Randolph (who wrote the majority opinion)[2], Justice Coleman [3], Justice Beam [4], and Justice Chamberlin [5], and by Justice Griffis in part. Justice Griffis concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by justice Kitchens.)

Question – What is the effect of a five-justice special concurrence from a nine-member court? Anything other than letting future litigants know that a majority of the court agrees whatever propositions are in the special concurrence? I will look into it later, but I do not know the answer off the top of my head.

Other Orders

Augustine v. State, 2019-CT-01467-SCT (denying motion for rehearing)
Johnson v. State, 2019-CT-01801-SCT (dismissing cert petition)
Figueroa v. State, 2020-CT-00114-SCT (denying cert petition)
Piccaluga v. State, 2020-CT-00346-SCT (denying cert petition)

Hand Down List Page

One more thing – At some point early this morning this blog had its 1,000th unique visit and passed 1,800 total hits in the three months since I launched it. Many thanks to those who have visited, subscribed, and shared the blog and to those who have provided encouragement and helpful feedback. I hope that it has been and continues to be a useful resource.

Mississippi Court of Appeals Hand Downs for February 8, 2022

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Mississippi v. Brown and Brown of Mississippi, LLC, 2020-CA-1414-COA (Civil – Contract/Garnishment)
Brown obtained two judgments against a BCBS insurance agent, enrolled the judgments, and then filed suit to enforce the judgments and suggestions for writs of garnishment against BCBS and others. BCBS denied it was indebted to the agent. The circuit court ordered BCBS to tender the agent’s commissions to Brown. BCBS appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the circuit court and rendered judgment in favor of BCBS, finding that the agent had assigned her interest in the commissions to a third party long before the writ of garnishment was served. The court of appeals also held that BCBS was entitled to its costs under section 11-35-45 and remanded to the circuit court to address that issue.

Ladner v. State, 2020-KA-299-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming a conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that it was harmless error for the the circuit court to exclude non-hearsay testimony under the hearsay rule and that the circuit court did not err admitting body cam footage. The opinion lists a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as one of the issues raised, but there is no discussion of that in the majority opinion, the special concurrence, or the dissent.

Nowell v. Stewart, 2020-CA-728-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Child Support)
Affirming the chancellor’s judgment increasing the child support modification based on a material change in circumstances.

Mangum v. State, 2020-CP-1205-COA (Civil – Post-Conviction Relief)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a motion for PCR based on the statute of limitations and the successive-motions bar.

United Services Automobile Association v. Moffatt, 2020-CA-1391-COA (Civil – Insurance/UM UIM)
The county court granted summary judgment in favor of a UM carrier, finding that the amended complaint naming the UM carrier was time barred because it was filed more than three years after the accident. The plaintiff appealed to the circuit court and the summary judgment was reversed. The UM carrier appealed to the court of appeals and the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court and remanded the case to the county court. The court of appeals held that there was a genuine fact issue for a jury as to when the plaintiff’s UM claim accrued based on when it could be reasonably known that the damages suffered exceed the limits of insurance available to the alleged tortfeasor.

Lowe v. State, 2019-KA-1621 (Criminal – Felony/Confrontation Clause)
Affirming a conviction of the sale of cocaine and sentencing as a habitual offender, holding that an officer’s testimony that a non-testifying confidential informant said she had bought drugs from the defendant in the past violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment but was harmless error.

Other Orders
6 Rehearing Denials

Link to Hand Down List