IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 97-60853
Summary Calendar
________________________
TAWANATHA REID
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant-Appellee
________________________
No. 98-60072
Summary Calendar
________________________
AMERICAN PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY
Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee
v.
TAWANATHA REID; BRADLEY REID
Defendant - Counter Claimant - Appellant
and
BRADIE REID, a minor by and through Bradley Reid, the
natural father
Defendant - Appellant
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(2:97-CV-98-PG & 2:97-CV-261-P-G)
_________________________________________________________________
September 14, 1998
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The appellants, Tawanatha Reid, Bradley Reid, and Bradie
Reid, appeal from two adverse judgments, one dismissing a claim
of bad faith and the other granting a motion for final summary
judgment on a declaratory action, both in favor of American
Premier Insurance Company. On appeal the appellants challenge,
as they did before the district court, the legality under
Mississippi law of a clause excluding liability coverage as to
family members in an automobile insurance policy issued to the
Reids by American Premier. They argue that the clause was
abrogated by both the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in
Glaskox v. Glaskox, 614 So.2d 906 (Miss. 1992) and by § 63-15-
43(3) of the Mississippi Safety Responsibility Act. In addition,
the appellants move to certify the question of the validity of
the exclusionary clause to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
That motion is denied.
We find the appellants’ arguments to be without merit. The
Supreme Court of Mississippi upheld a similar exclusionary clause
in Thompson v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 602 So.2d
855 (Miss. 1992). While the court did subsequently abolish
parental immunity in Glaskox, see Glaskox, 614 So.2d at 912, that
decision did not speak to the validity of an exclusionary rule in
an automobile liability insurance policy and therefore did not
overrule Thompson. The appellants’ second argument is also
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
without merit since the Supreme Court of Mississippi’s decision
in State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Mettetal, 534 So.2d 189
(Miss. 1988), plainly indicates that the Reid’s insurance policy
was not governed by § 63-15-43(3) of the Mississippi Safety
Responsibility Act.
After a consideration of the appellants’ arguments, the
entire record, and a de novo review of the legal findings of the
district court, the judgments below are AFFIRMED for these
reasons, which are essentially the same as provided by the
district court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated
December 16, 1997.
AFFIRMED.
3