Howard C. Haggans v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-CA-00169-COA
HOWARD C. HAGGANS
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, STATE FARM
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND JOHN R. "RICKY" PRICE, III
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLANT
APPELLEES
12/22/2001
HON. GEORGE C. CARLSON JR.
TATE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
DANA J. SWAN
DAN W. WEBB
SHERRIE L. MOORE
CIVIL - INSURANCE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS
AFFIRMED - 01/08/2002
1/29/2002
BEFORE KING, P.J., IRVING, AND BRANTLEY, JJ.
BRANTLEY, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Howard C. Haggans brought suit against State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, State Farm General
Insurance Company (collectively "State Farm") and John R. "Ricky" Price, III (Price) for loss of personal
property in a home owned by Haggans in Tate County, Mississippi. The Tate County Circuit Court granted
summary judgment in favor of State Farm and Price. Aggrieved, Haggans appeals, arguing that the circuit
court erred in granting summary judgment. State Farm and Price argue that no genuine issue of material fact
existed against Price or State Farm. Finding that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment,
we affirm.
FACTS
¶2. In October 1997, Haggans resided in Winona, Mississippi. However, Haggans had decided to move to
Tate County, Mississippi where he had purchased property. Before he could move, the house on the
property had to be remodeled. Haggans who personally worked on the Tate County property found it
necessary to leave tools and other personal items at the property. During this time he contacted Price, an
agent for State Farm through which Haggans had insured his Winona property, to obtain insurance
coverage for the property in Tate County, Mississippi. Haggans contends that he told Price that he wanted
full coverage on this property.
¶3. The Tate County property was burglarized in December 1997 resulting in several thousand-dollars
worth of personal property being stolen from the premises. Haggans reported the theft to Price. State Farm
notified Haggans that his loss was not covered under the terms of the policy covering the Winona,
Mississippi residence. Haggans claims that this was the first time he was informed that the Tate County
property did not have contents coverage, but only fire and extended coverage. Haggans filed suit against
Price for failure to procure the insurance requested and State Farm under the doctrine of respondeat
superior.
¶4. Price and State Farm filed an answer to the complaint and later a motion for summary judgment. Price
argues that he was not authorized to write fire and extended coverage or any type of contents coverage for
vacant residential property, such as the Tate County property of Haggans on behalf of State Farm. Price
stated that he inspected the Tate County property and assigned it a "Class 10" insurance risk. An
application for coverage through the Mississippi Rural Risk Underwriting Association (MRRUA) was
signed by both Price and Haggans. Through the MRRUA, carriers are selected on a rotating basis to
provide fire and extended coverage insurance for rural homes that have a Class 9 or higher risk factor. A
Farm Bureau policy for fire and extended coverage was obtained on the Tate County property through the
MRRUA that specifically excluded contents coverage.
¶5. In State Farm and Price's motion for summary judgment, they argued that if Price could not have
written any contents insurance covering the Tate County property, then he could not be negligent for failing
to procure the insurance. Accordingly, if Price is not negligent, then State Farm could not be liable for
Price's actions. The circuit court, after a hearing, agreed and granted summary judgment for Price and State
Farm. Haggans appeals this judgment arguing the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment.
ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶6. Haggans made the following assignments of error:
I. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF JOHN R. "RICKY" PRICE, III.
II. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
¶7. The standard of review for summary judgment is de novo. Mantachie Natural Gas Dist. v.
Mississippi Valley Gas Co., 594 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Miss. 1992). Summary judgment is proper only
when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. M.R.C.P. 56. A material fact "tends to resolve any of the issues, properly raised by the parties." Mink
v. Andrew Jackson Casualty Ins. Co., 537 So. 2d 431, 433 (Miss. 1988) (citations omitted). In
reviewing the motion, the court considers "all admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, affidavits,
and any other evidence, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-movant." Owen v.
Pringle, 621 So. 2d 668, 670 (Miss. 1993).
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
I. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF JOHN R. "RICKY" PRICE, III
¶8. The parties have agreed that this is an action for failure to procure insurance. Haggans's basic argument
is that Price was negligent in failing to procure the insurance he requested for his home in Tate County,
Mississippi. Price counters that he was not authorized to write the type of insurance Haggans requested and
that no such insurance exists in Mississippi.
¶9. Under the theory of negligence, Haggans must prove duty, breach of that duty, damages and causation
by a preponderance of evidence. Lovett v. Bradford, 676 So. 2d 893, 896 (Miss. 1996). It is the duty of
an insurance agent to exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining a policy conforming to the request of the
insured. Ritchie v. Smith, 311 So. 2d 642, 646 (Miss. 1975). Here, Price obtained the only coverage
available for the Tate County property. An affidavit by Price and an affidavit by Dennis R. Hall, a licensed,
independent insurance agent who has been procuring insurance in Mississippi for twenty-seven years, stated
that no contents coverage policy could have been obtained for the vacant Tate County property through
any insurance carrier writing property coverage in Mississippi. Haggans failed to put forth any evidence, in
affidavit form or otherwise, that he could have obtained contents coverage for an unoccupied dwelling.
¶10. Although, Haggans argues that he believed the property to be insured, he did receive a copy of the
policy. Whether Haggans in fact read the policy or not, as an insured, he is deemed to have knowledge of
the contents of an insurance policy. Cherry v. Anthony, Gibbs & Sage, 501 So. 2d 416, 419 (Miss.
1987). Haggans failed to bring forth any evidence regarding whether he could have obtained contents
coverage or what else he would have done. If no insurance could have been obtained, then a duty to
procure insurance could not have been breached. Therefore, no genuine issue of material fact exists as to a
breach of duty to procure insurance. Even if Price breached the duty, Haggans failed to set forth any issue
as to causation of injury. Accordingly, summary judgment was appropriate.
II. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
¶11. Haggans argues that State Farm is liable for its agent's (Price's) actions under the doctrine of
respondeat superior. State Farm argues as the type of coverage did not exist, then it cannot be liable.
However, the Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that:
Although the precise issue of whether an agent can bind an insurer to coverage the insurer is not
authorized to give has not previously been addressed, it is well settled that an insurer is liable for
actions of its agents within the scope of the agent's actual or apparent authority.
Dixie Ins. Co. v. Mooneyhan, 684 So. 2d 574, 583 (Miss. 1996). In accordance with the principles of
agency, the acts of its agents can bind an insurer. Andrew Jackson Life Ins. Co. v. Williams, 566 So. 2d
1172, 1180 (Miss. 1990).
¶12. However, as we have found that Price did not breach any duty owed to Haggans, it therefore naturally
follows that State Farm has no liability. Accordingly, the grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm
is affirmed.
¶13. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TATE COUNTY IS AFFIRMED.
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING, MYERS AND CHANDLER, JJ., CONCUR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.