Lincoln E. Warren, Sr. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2000-CA-00361-COA
LINCOLN E. WARREN, SR. BY LINCOLN E. WARREN, JR.,
CONSERVATOR
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY AND
AMERICAN FAMILY HOME INSURANCE COMPANY
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
APPELLANT
APPELLEES
02/23/2000
HON. W. SWAN YERGER
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
BILL WALLER, SR.
R.QUENTIN WHITWELL, JR.
THOMAS Y. PAGE
DAVID OTT
KATHERINE L. HOWIE
NATURE OF THE CASE:
CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
ALL CLAIMS AGAINST USF&G AND AMERICAN
FAMILY HOME INSURANCE COMPANY ARE
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE WITH EACH PARTY TO
BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.
DISPOSITION:
AFFIRMED - 07/31/01
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: 8/14/2001; denied 10/23/2001
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
11/13/2001
BEFORE KING, P.J., LEE, AND CHANDLER, JJ.
CHANDLER, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. The Hinds County Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the insurance company appellees finding
that the insureds' homeowner and business insurance policies did not cover damages arising from the
operation of a motor vehicle belonging to the insureds. Lincoln Warren, Jr., as conservator of his father's
estate, argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2. Fifteen-year-old Daniel Shields spent a Friday night with his grandparents, Margaret and Jack Glascoe,
at their home in Jackson. On the following morning, Daniel, who had received his learners' permit
approximately thirty days before, drove Margaret to Yazoo City in Jack's automobile. On the return trip,
Daniel collided with a vehicle driven by Lincoln Warren, Sr. Warren was seriously injured, and the
Glascoes' automobile insurance did not fully compensate him. Warren sued American Family Home
Insurance Company (American Family) which had issued a homeowners' insurance policy to the Glascoes.
Warren also sued United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF&G) which had issued a general
insurance policy to Jack Glascoe d/b/a Glascoe Corner Grocery. Warren theorized that the Glascoes were
negligent for entrusting their vehicle to their grandson and that they were negligent in supervising their
grandson.
¶3. The trial court granted summary judgment to American Family and USF&G, finding that their respective
policies excluded damages for injuries arising from the Glascoes' ownership of a motor vehicle.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO
AMERICAN FAMILY AND USF&G?
¶4. The American Family policy contains the following exclusions:
1. Coverage E - Personal Liability and Coverage F - Medical Payments to Others do not
apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage . . . "
f. Arising out of:
(1) The ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of motor vehicles or all other motorized
land conveyances, including trailers, owned or operated by or rented or loaned to an "insured";
(2) The entrustment by an "insured" of a motor vehicle or any other motorized land conveyance to any
person; or
(3) Vicarious liability, whether or not statutorily imposed, for the actions of a child or minor using a
conveyance excluded in paragraph (1) or (2) above.
¶5. The USF&G policy excludes personal injuries: "arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use or
entrustment to others of any aircraft, 'auto,' snowmobile or trailer design for use therewith, or watercraft
owned or operated by, or rented, leased or loaned to any insured."
¶6. Unambiguous insurance contract terms will be construed as written. Lowery v. Guar. Bank and Trust
Co., 592 So. 2d 79, 82 (Miss. 1991). Both of the policies at issue in the case sub judice clearly exclude
liability for injuries arising from the entrustment of a motor vehicle to others. Thus, the trial court's grant of
summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claim was appropriate.
¶7. In addition to his negligent entrustment claim, Warren argues that the Glascoes were negligent in
supervising their grandson. Warren argues damages for negligent supervision are not excluded from either
the American Family or the USF&G policies.
¶8. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi has resolved this issue in favor
of the insurance companies. In Love v. McDonough, 758 F. Supp. 397 (S.D. Miss. 1991), the court,
construing a similar exclusion in a homeowners' policy, framed the issue as follows:
There is one salient question that is the key to determining whether coverage [for negligent
supervision] is provided by policies using exclusions worded as the one before the Court. Did the
plaintiff's injuries arise out of the use or ownership of an automobile by an insured? If they did, then
there is no coverage under the policy. The Supreme Court of Mississippi has made its position clear
that it will not recognize "strained interpretations" of policies in order to create otherwise nonexistent
coverage.
Id. at 402.
¶9. The Love court acknowledged the plaintiff's argument that negligent supervision was a different theory
of liability than negligent entrustment. However, the court adopted the rationale of numerous other courts
which view negligent entrustment and negligent supervision as synonymous terms when interpreting similar
policy exclusions. Id. The court noted: "These courts recognize that 'the exclusion applies to a specific
instrumentality, namely an automobile, rather than a theory of recovery.'" Id. (citing Northern Ins. Co. of
New York v. Ekstrom, 784 P. 2d 320 (Colo. 1989)). The court, ruling that the policy clearly excluded
coverage for injuries arising out of the insured's ownership of a motor vehicle, concluded: "Asserting a
different theory of liability to perform an end-run around the exclusion strains the clear and unambiguous
language of the provision out of all bounds, and this the court refuses to do. Application of the exclusion is
not dependent on the theory of liability asserted." Love, 758 F. Supp. at 402.
¶10. As in Love, the American Family and USF&G policies clearly exclude liability for damages arising
from the insured's ownership of any motor vehicle. Warren's damages are clearly not compensable under
either the American Family or the USF&G policies because they were caused by a motor vehicle owned
by the insured parties. We agree with the Love court's reasoning that asserting a different theory of liability,
e.g., negligent supervision, strains the clear language of the exclusion and we, like the Love court, refuse to
construe the policy in this convoluted manner. The astute trial court correctly ruled that the American Family
and USF&G policies clearly and unambiguously excluded Warren's damages from coverage. We,
therefore, affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the insurance company appellees.
¶11. JUDGMENT OF THE HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT GRANTING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TO APPELLEES IS AFFIRMED. COSTS ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., PAYNE, BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING AND MYERS, 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.