Not pretty, but not repugnant either

Sometimes, simply stating the issue gives a strong indication as to the answer. Such was the case in McGlothlin v. State Farm, which examined whether two Mississippi statutes were “repugnant” to one another (synonyms for “repugnant,” according to one online reference, include “abhorrent, revolting, repulsive, repellent, disgusting, offensive, objectionable, vile, foul, nasty, [and] loathsome . . . .” Specifically, Mississippi’s uninsured-motorist statute (1) required State Farm to pay the damages that an insured is “legally entitled to recover” from an uninsured driver, and (2) treats a fireman driving a fire truck as “uninsured,” as a result of the statute’s governmental-immunity statute. A driver who was rear-ended by a fire truck argued that these two statutes were “repugnant” and had to be read in favor of coverage; the Fifth Circuit disagreed: “The two sections’ being ‘confusing’ does not equate to repugnancy.” No. 18-60338 (May 31, 2019).