Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

40 Citing cases

  1. Tucker v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co.

    801 F.2d 728 (5th Cir. 1986)   Cited 6 times
    In Tucker, this court decided that Talbot was inapposite to this question because the provision in Talbot would have reduced the UM payment to the insured by the amount paid out under the Med Pay provision even though the insured's total damages, minus the Med Pay payments, exceeded the UM limit. 801 F.2d at 730-31.

    Any provision attempting to reduce coverage below those statutory limits is illegal. Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 So.2d 699 (Miss. 1974); Harthcock v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 248 So.2d 456 (Miss. 1971).

  2. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garriga

    636 So. 2d 658 (Miss. 1994)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that Koestler announced correct test but misconstrued Act's minimum requirements

    State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Talley, 329 So.2d 52, 54 (Miss. 1976) (quoting Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 So.2d 699, 701 (Miss. 1974)). We have repeatedly held

  3. Boatner v. Atlanta Specialty Ins. Co.

    115 F.3d 1248 (5th Cir. 1997)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that the Mississippi legislature did not intend that Mississippi Uninsured Motorist Act would provide Mississippians worldwide uninsured motorist coverage when an accident occurred in Honduras

    See McCoy v. South Cen. Bell Tel. Co., 688 So.2d 214, 215-16 (Miss. 1996) (looking to other jurisdictions' view of whether self-insured companies are required to provide uninsured motorist coverage to their employees or lessees); Cossitt, 541 So.2d at 441-42 (relying on interpretations of "analogous" uninsured motorist statutes); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kuehling, 475 So.2d 1159, 1162-63 (Miss. 1985) (looking for guidance to "similar" uninsured motorist statutes which provide for underinsured motorist coverage); Daughdrill, 474 So.2d at 1053-54 (declining to follow interpretations of other states' dissimilar uninsured motorist statutes); Talbot v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 291 So.2d 699, 701 (Miss. 1974) (looking to authority of other states regarding whether insureds, under uninsured motorist policies, can aggregate coverage provided in a single insurance policy which insures more than one vehicle), overruled on other grounds, Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Brown, 446 So.2d 1002 (Miss. 1984); Lowery, 285 So.2d at 771-77 (reviewing cases interpreting other states' uninsured motorist statutes and concluding that "the great weight of authority supports the [plaintiff's] contention that the exclusionary clause violates the public policy of this state"); Rampy, 278 So.2d at 432-34 (looking for guidance to interpretations of "similar, if not identical" uninsured motorist statutes); McMinn, 276 So.2d at 685 (treating as "persuasive and enlightening" other uninsured motorist statutes which do not contain the exact phraseology of the UM Act); Harthcock, 248 So.2d at 461-62 (looking to other jurisdictions' interpretation of "other insurance" clause); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Chappell, 246 So.

  4. Pride v. Gen. Agents Ins. Co. of America

    697 F. Supp. 1417 (N.D. Miss. 1988)   Cited 5 times

    By stating these two as alternative grounds, the court makes it clear that the rationale behind the "separate premiums are presumptively treated as separate policies" rule is something other than the ambiguity created by the separate listing of premiums. In Brown, the court states that it is adopting the reasoning "set forth in Justice Broom's dissent in" Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 So.2d 699 (Miss. 1974). In Talbot, a majority of the court had held that when the policy contains unambiguous language limiting its U.M. liability, that limitation is effective even though the policy covers more than one automobile and a separate premium is charged for each one.

  5. In re Koestler for Benefit of Koestler

    608 So. 2d 1258 (Miss. 1992)   Cited 9 times
    In Koestler and Nationwide, the issue was the effect of policy provisions applied against the uninsured motorists statute.

    State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Talley, 329 So.2d 52, 54 (Miss. 1976) (quoting Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 So.2d 699, 701 (Miss. 1974)). We have repeatedly held

  6. Government Emp. Ins. Co. v. Brown

    446 So. 2d 1002 (Miss. 1984)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that without clear and unambiguous language of limitation by insurer, insurer cannot limit recovery for benefits for which an insured paid a premium

    1979) (allowing aggregation of coverage from multiple premiums under one policy).Contra: Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 So.2d 699 (Miss. 1974) (the limitation clause was clear and unambiguous and therefore stacking was denied). Phillips, A guide To Uninsured Motorist Insurance Law in Mississippi, 52 Miss.L.J. 255, 285 (1982).

  7. Welborn v. State Farm Ins. Co.

    480 F.3d 685 (5th Cir. 2007)   Cited 12 times
    Noting that when a circuit panel has ruled on an issue that has not been superseded by either state case law or a change in statutory authority, courts in the circuit are bound by the prior decisions of the circuit as to the meaning of state law

    We are bound by Tucker's assessment of the law of Mississippi that State Farm's provision preventing this windfall is valid, absent any intervening Mississippi case law or statutory amendments. There are three cases that arguably address issues of law similar enough to affect the outcome of this case: Talbot v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 291 So.2d 699 (Miss. 1974), Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garriga, 636 So.2d 658 (Miss. 1994), and Fidelity Guar. Underwriters, Inc. v.Earnest, 699 So.2d 585 (Miss.

  8. Porter v. Shelter General Ins. Co.

    678 F. Supp. 151 (S.D. Miss. 1988)   Cited 6 times
    In Porter, the United States District Court held that the parties were "free to contract for supplemental benefits so long as the uninsured motorist benefits do not exceed the liability benefits."

    Although the Mississippi Supreme Court has never considered the specific issue of workers' compensation, it has consistently refused to allow any reduction of uninsured motorist coverage below the minimum required by statute. Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 So.2d 699, 703 (Miss. 1974); Harthcock v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 248 So.2d 456 (Miss. 1971).

  9. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Ferguson

    94 CA 1283 (Miss. 1997)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that court "will not interfere with the right of the insurer and insured to contract" regarding UM coverage "so long as the policy meets the minimum statutory requirements," "contracts contrary to public policy are unenforceable"

    1985); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Talley, 329 So.2d 52, 54 (Miss. 1976); Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 So.2d 699, 701 (Miss. 1974). "Over and above legally mandated minimums, the parties have always remained free to agree as they wish.

  10. Dixie Ins. v. State Farm Mut

    614 So. 2d 918 (Miss. 1993)

    1986); State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Kuehling, 475 So.2d 1159, 1161 (Miss. 1985); Talbot v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 291 So.2d 699, 703 (Miss. 1974). Likewise, our cases provide for the freedom of the insurer and the insured to contract so long as the mandatory statutory requirements are not circumvented. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange v. Federal Ins. Co., 608 So.2d 1258, 1259 (Miss.