Marsha R. Hinton and Thomas F. Hinton v. Pekin Insurance Company

Summary

The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Pekin Insurance Company in a wrongful-death action arising from injuries sustained in a fall from a tree stand. The court held that the insurance policy clearly included an exclusion for tree stands and related equipment and that the plaintiffs failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning the exclusion. The court also affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment based on waiver and estoppel theories.

Holdings

1. The Pekin policies unambiguously excluded coverage for deer or tree stands and related equipment, so the policy did not cover Timothy Hinton's loss.
2. The Hintons failed to identify a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the 481T exclusion was omitted from the amending policy or created and inserted after the accident.
3. The additional-insured issue was moot after the court determined that the policy excluded coverage, and the court declined to issue an advisory opinion.
4. Pekin was not estopped from asserting its coverage defenses because it promptly investigated and denied coverage, limited the defense representation, and the record did not establish prejudice caused by its conduct.
5. Pekin did not waive its coverage defenses by denying coverage, declining to defend indefinitely, or failing to proceed under the Hintons' proposed reservation-of-rights or declaratory-judgment theory.
6. Pekin was not judicially estopped from relying on Cole's testimony concerning C&S's tender of the defense or belief about coverage.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Pekin policy included and applied the 481T exclusion for tree stands and related equipment.
2. Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the 481T exclusion was omitted from the 2012 amending policy or inserted after Timothy Hinton's accident.
3. Whether The Sportsman's Guide's additional-insured status required judicial determination.
4. Whether Pekin was estopped from asserting coverage defenses because it initially assigned counsel, withdrew from the defense, failed to obtain a declaratory judgment, or allowed C&S to default.
5. Whether Pekin waived its coverage defenses by failing to defend under a reservation of rights or promptly seek declaratory relief.
6. Whether Pekin was judicially estopped from relying on testimony concerning C&S's tender of the defense and belief about coverage.

Disposition

affirmed