## Facts

- Betty and Daniel O’Rourke were Tennessee residents injured in a Mississippi automobile collision caused by an uninsured Mississippi driver.
- At the time of the crash, the O’Rourkes were occupying a jointly owned 1988 Oldsmobile insured by State Farm with uninsured motorist (UM) limits of $50,000/$100,000 (and medical payments coverage).
- The O’Rourkes also owned a 1981 Toyota insured under a separate Colonial policy with UM limits of $100,000/$300,000; the Colonial policy insured only the Toyota.
- The Colonial policy contained an owned-vehicle exclusion providing that a person occupying a vehicle owned by the insured but not insured under the Colonial policy is not covered.
- The Colonial policy was procured and paid for in Tennessee (through a Tennessee agency or by payment to Colonial’s Georgia office), and the Toyota was based in Tennessee.
- The O’Rourkes sought to stack UM benefits by recovering under both the State Farm policy (covering the Oldsmobile) and the Colonial policy (covering the Toyota), despite the exclusion.

## Issues

1. Under Mississippi choice-of-law rules for contracts, does Tennessee or Mississippi law govern the enforceability of Colonial’s owned-vehicle exclusion for UM coverage?
2. If Tennessee law governs under the most-significant-relationship test, should Mississippi refuse to apply Tennessee law based on a public-policy exception favoring UM stacking and limiting exclusions?

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Colonial.
- Applying Mississippi’s center-of-gravity/most-significant-relationship test, the court held Tennessee law governed interpretation of the Tennessee-centered Colonial policy.
- Under Tennessee law, the owned-vehicle exclusion was enforceable and barred UM coverage because the O’Rourkes were occupying their Oldsmobile, which was not insured under the Colonial policy.
- The court declined to apply Mississippi’s public-policy exception to override Tennessee law.

## Legal Principles

- Mississippi applies a center-of-gravity (most significant relationship) analysis to contract choice-of-law questions, focusing on contacts and interests relevant to the contractual issue.
- Insurance coverage disputes about policy terms are treated primarily as contract issues, even when the triggering accident occurs in another state.
- Mississippi’s public-policy exception to applying foreign law is narrow; foreign law is displaced only when application would be repugnant to a fundamental forum policy.
- When an automobile policy is negotiated, issued, and paid for in the insureds’ home state and insures a vehicle based there, that state ordinarily has the dominant interest in governing the policy’s terms.
- Under Tennessee law (as applied), an owned-vehicle exclusion in UM coverage may validly preclude coverage when the insured is injured while occupying an owned vehicle not listed on the policy.

## Conclusion

Because the Colonial policy was a Tennessee policy issued to Tennessee residents for a Tennessee-based vehicle, Mississippi applied Tennessee law and enforced the owned-vehicle exclusion, preventing the insureds from stacking Colonial UM benefits for injuries suffered in the Mississippi accident.


O'Rourke v. Colonial Ins. Co. of Cal., 624 So. 2d 84 (Miss. 1993)