The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed previous holdings that “each person” policy limits are based on the number of persons who suffer bodily injury in an accident, not the number of insureds making claims. Rylee v. Progressive Gulf Ins. Co., 2017 WL 949545 (Miss. Mar. 9, 2017).
An insured motorcyclist was injured when a car collided with his motorcycle. The other driver’s insurer tendered the per-person policy limit for the motorcyclist’s injuries, and his primary insurer claimed it was entitled to a set-off and refused to tender uninsured motorist limits. The motorcyclist’s wife sued her husband’s uninsured motorist insurers and the driver of the other vehicle alleging loss of consortium. The motorcyclist filed a separate suit against the same defendants. The cases were consolidated and the two uninsured motorist carriers moved for summary judgment, arguing the “each person” policy limits precluded coverage because the motorcyclist was the only person injured in the accident and he had already received policy limits from the other driver’s insurer. The court granted summary judgment.
On appeal, the motorcyclist’s wife argued that her loss of consortium claim was not included in the “each person” policy limit and she was therefore entitled to coverage under her husband’s uninsured motorist policies. The policies similarly defined the “each person” limit of liability to include the total of all claims made for bodily injury to an insured person and all claims of others derived from such bodily injury, including, but not limited to, emotional injury or mental anguish resulting from the bodily injury of another or from witnessing the bodily injury to another, loss of society, loss of companionship, loss of service, loss of consortium, and wrongful death. The Supreme Court referred to its previous holdings that held that more than one person must have sustained bodily injury during the accident to recover more than the “each person” limit. Because the policies stated that the wife’s loss of consortium claim fell under the policy limits for damages resulting from the husband-rider’s bodily injury, and her husband had already received full policy limits for his bodily injuries, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s granting of summary judgment to the insurers.