Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 96-60537
Summary Calendar
ROBERT CHARLES THOMAS, As Co-Administrators of the
Estate of Katherine Thomas, All as the Wrongful Death
Beneficiaries of Ravella Burns; EDWARD THOMAS, As
Co-Administrators of the Estate of Katherine Thomas,
All as the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Ravella
Burns; MOSES THOMAS, As Co-Administrators of the
Estate of Katherine Thomas, All as the Wrongful Death
Beneficiaries of Ravella Burns; HENRY HAYWOOD, JR.,
As Co-Administrators of the Estate of Katherine Thomas,
All as the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Ravella Burns;
DELORES THOMAS, As Co-Administrators of the Estate of
Katherine Thomas, All as the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries
of Ravella Burns,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
ALLSTATE INSURANCE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Mississippi
April 25, 1997
Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
BACKGROUND
On September 2, 1990, Ravella Burns ("Burns") was involved in

a two vehicle accident in Adams County, Mississippi, and died as a
result of that accident. The other vehicle involved in the
accident was driven by Joseph R. Ware and neither Ware nor the
vehicle he was driving was covered by any automobile liability
insurance at the time of the accident. Burns, however, was insured
pursuant to the terms of an automobile insurance policy issued by
Allstate. The Allstate policy provided uninsured motorist coverage
for Burns' vehicle involved in the accident, as well as two other
vehicles. Pursuant to its interpretation of its policy, Allstate
paid to the estate and representatives of Burns $10,000 in
uninsured motorist coverage benefits. The wrongful death
beneficiaries of Burns, the plaintiffs in this action, assert that
even though the Allstate policy contains a "anti-stacking"
provision, the uninsured motorist coverage should be stacked to
provide a total recovery of $30,000 (i.e., $10,000 for each of the
three covered vehicles). They claim Allstate owes them an
additional $20,000 in uninsured motorist benefits. Allstate admits
that the plaintiffs, as the wrongful death beneficiaries of Burns,
have suffered damages of at least $30,000.
After this lawsuit was initiated, the district court entered
an order on April 28, 1995, staying this action pending a decision
by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Harrison v. Allstate, 662 So.
2d 1092 (Miss. 1995). The Harrison decision was rendered on
October 26, 1995, and held that (1) the insured could stack two
bodily injury uninsured motorist coverages; and (2) Allstate could
not be liable for punitive damages because the issue presented was
2

one of first impression in Mississippi. Id. at 1094-95. The
Mississippi Supreme Court, however, declined to consider and
Harrison did not consider the issue presented in this case, i.e.,
if more than two cars are covered by the insurance policy, does the
premium charge for uninsured motorist coverage permit the stacking
as to each additional car. Because of Harrison, Allstate paid to
the plaintiffs an additional $10,000 plus interest but denies that
it owes any additional coverage for the third car covered by Burns'
policy. Allstate moved for summary judgment and the district court
granted such motion by an opinion and order filed under date of
July 9, 1996, and entered final judgment on July 9, 1996, in favor
of Allstate. The plaintiffs timely appealed.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and
relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by
the district court in its opinion and order filed under date of
July 9, 1996, the final judgment entered under date of July 9,
1996, is
AFFIRMED.
3