Evana Pltn. v. Yorkshire Ins. Co.

15 Citing cases

  1. Great American Ins. Co. v. Smith

    172 So. 2d 558 (Miss. 1965)   Cited 8 times
    In Smith, the appellant asserted that the lower court erred in not directing subrogation of the mortgagee's rights under the deed of trust pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 5695 (1956) (now Miss. Code Ann. § 83-13-9).

    Merle F. Palmer, Pascagoula; John T. Smith, Cleveland, for appellee. I. Cited and discussed the following authorities: Bacot v. Phenix Insurance Co., 96 Miss. 223, 50 So. 729; Evana Plantation v. Yorkshire Insurance Co., 214 Miss. 321, 58 So.2d 797; Glens Falls Insurance Co. v. Linwood Elevator, 241 Miss. 400, 130 So.2d 262; Hennessey v. Helgason, 168 Miss. 834, 151 So. 724; Yorkshire Insurance Co. v. Brewer, 175 Miss. 538, 166 So. 361; Secs. 5693, 5695, Code 1942. GILLESPIE, J.

  2. Providence Wash. Ins. v. Weaver

    242 Miss. 141 (Miss. 1961)   Cited 12 times

    Soc. of U.S. v. Askew, 194 Miss. 347, 11 So.2d 441; Griffin v. Maryland Casualty Co., 213 Miss. 624, 57 So.2d 486; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Smith, 119 Miss. 308, 80 So. 776; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., 235 F.2d 679; Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Shelby, 116 Miss. 278, 76 So. 839; 21 Appleman on Insurance Law Practice, Secs. 12239, 12688. A. The overturning of the truck and trailer was not the proximate cause of the death of the 36 calves, if they in fact are dead. Clouse v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., 152 Neb. 230, 40 N.W.2d 820; Crosby v. Burge, supra; Evana Plantation v. Yorkshire Ins. Co., 214 Miss. 321, 58 So.2d 797; Mississippi City Lines v. Bullock, 194 Miss. 630, 13 So.2d 34; 29A Am. Jur., Insurance, Sec. 1134; 45 C.J.S., Insurance, Sec. 756. II.

  3. Amer. Hwd. Ins. Co. v. Union Gas Co.

    238 Miss. 289 (Miss. 1960)   Cited 13 times
    In American Hardware Mutual Ins. Co. v. Union Gas Co., 238 Miss. 289, 118 So.2d 334, 335 (1960), Judge Ethridge writing for the Mississippi Supreme Court cited 29 Am.Jur., Insurance, Sec. 264, wherein it was stated "[t]he rule is well established" that ambiguous exceptions "will be construed strictly against the insurer, and liberally in favor of the insured, in order that the purpose of insurance shall not be defeated."

    III. The lower court's construction of "highways" was reasonable. Evana Plantation, Inc. v. Yorkshire Ins. Co., Ltd., 214 Miss. 321, 58 So.2d 797; Great American Ins. Co. v. Bass, 208 Miss. 436, 44 So.2d 532; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Beckham, 163 Miss. 836, 143 So. 886; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Nessossis, 189 Miss. 414, 196 So. 766. IV. The lower court's construction of "highways" is in line with the hazards which the policy was designed to protect.

  4. Commonwealth Lloyds v. Downs

    853 S.W.2d 104 (Tex. App. 1993)   Cited 16 times
    Concluding word "hail" is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction

    In an attempt to equate the two conditions of hail and sleet, Downs recognizes there are no Texas cases directly on point. Without any further analysis or discussion, Downs urges us to adopt the reasoning of Evana Plantation v. Yorkshire Ins. Co., 214 Miss. 321, 58 So.2d 797 (1952), and Southall v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 276 Ark. 58, 632 S.W.2d 420 (1982), both of which held that sleet was included within the policy coverage for "hail." In Evana, the question was whether damage caused by sleet to the roof of an insured building was covered within the terms of an insurance contract which provided coverage for "hail," but which specifically excluded damage by ice from the hail coverage.

  5. Leonard v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

    No. 06-61130 (5th Cir. Sep. 7, 2007)

    The default causation rule in Mississippi regarding damages caused concurrently by a covered and an excluded peril under an insurance policy is that the insured may recover if the covered peril was the "dominant and efficient cause" of the loss. Evana Plantation, Inc. v. Yorkshire Ins. Co., 58 So. 2d 797, 798 (Miss. 1952). This rule is typically referred to as the doctrine of efficient proximate cause.

  6. Leonard v. Nationwide Mut

    499 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2007)   Cited 131 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a similar anti-concurrent causation clause rendered the applicable provision effective even when another peril contributes to the damage

    The default causation rule in Mississippi regarding damages caused concurrently by a covered and an excluded peril under an insurance policy is that the insured may recover if the covered peril was the "dominant and efficient cause" of the loss. Evana Plantation, Inc. v. Yorkshire Ins. Co., 214 Miss. 321, 58 So.2d 797, 798 (1952). This rule is typically referred to as the doctrine of efficient proximate cause.

  7. Universal Underwriters Insurance v. Ford

    97 CA 298 (Miss. 1999)   Cited 33 times
    In Universal Underwriters, the Mississippi Supreme Court considered whether an insured could separately recover for each act of embezzlement by a single employee.

    The basic reason that uncertainty is decided in favor of the insured is that the insurer prepares the policy and should not be allowed by the use of obscure or ambiguous exceptions to defeat the purposes for which the policy was sold. Evana Plantation, Inc.v. Yorkshire Ins. Co., 214 Miss. 321, 330, 58 So.2d 797, 800 (1952); Great American Ins. Co. v. Bass, 208 Miss. 436, 44 So.2d 532, 533 (1950). Thus, "[i]In accord with the general standard of giving effect to the purpose of the contract, the rule is that provisos, exceptions, or exemptions, and words of limitation in the nature of an exception, are strictly construed against the insurer, where they are of uncertain import or reasonably susceptible of a double construction."

  8. Gunn v. Principal Casualty Insurance Co.

    605 So. 2d 741 (Miss. 1992)   Cited 7 times
    Recognizing that any ambiguity in an insurance policy is to be strictly construed against the drafter, because the drafter is in a position to correct the ambiguity

    Ass'n v. Majure, 201 Miss. 183, 29 So.2d 110 (1947); Great American Ins. Co. v. Bass, 208 Miss. 436, 44 So.2d 532 (1950)." Evana Plantation, Inc. v. Yorkshire Ins. Co., Ltd., 214 Miss. 321, 325, 58 So.2d 797 (1952). See also Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Brown, 446 So.2d 1002 (Miss.

  9. Southall v. Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co.

    276 Ark. 58 (Ark. 1982)   Cited 30 times
    In Southall there was undisputed testimony that "hail" includes sleet, and that the sleet on the roof was small hail. Although it is agreed by the parties that Downs' roof was damaged by an accumulation of ice, there were many conflicting opinions at trial regarding whether the ice was actually "hail."

    In a case directly in point it was held that a policy covering loss by hail includes loss by sleet. Evana Plantation v. Yorkshire Ins. Co., 214 Miss. 321, 58 So.2d 797 (1952). No case to the contrary is cited.

  10. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company v. Belk

    269 So. 2d 637 (Miss. 1972)   Cited 3 times

    * * *' (Glens Falls Insurance Co. v. Linwood Elevator, 241 Miss. 400, 421, 130 So.2d 262, 270 (1961). In Evana Plantation, Inc. v. Yorkshire Insurance Company, Ltd., 214 Miss. 321, 325, 58 So.2d 797, 798 (1952), this Court said: `The general rule is that, if the cause designated in the policy is the dominant and efficient cause of the loss the right of the insurer to recover will not be defeated by the fact that there were contributing causes.'