St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Chilton-Shelby Mental Health Center, CHILTON-SHELBY
| Decision Date | 28 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | CHILTON-SHELBY |
| Parties | ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company 1 v.MENTAL HEALTH CENTER. 1901621. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Edward O. Conerly and K. David Sawyer of McDaniel, Hall, Conerly & Lusk, P.C., Birmingham, for appellants.
Mark W. Lee of Parsons, Lee & Julliano, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
Chilton-Shelby Mental Health Center ("the Center") sued St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company ("St. Paul"), seeking a judgment declaring that the Center and one of its employees, Fred King, were covered under the general and professional liability portions of its policy issued by St. Paul. This action was filed after St. Paul had refused to provide coverage to the Center and King in an underlying wrongful death action. The trial court entered a judgment for the Center, holding that the Center and King were entitled to coverage under both portions of the policy. We affirm as to the professional liability portion of the policy; however, we reverse as to the general liability portion of the policy, and remand.
The wrongful death action for which the Center sought coverage arose out of the heat-related death of an 18-month-old infant, Randy Allen Carter, who had been left unattended on a hot summer day in a van owned by the Center. The Center, which provided rural transportation services in the communities it served, had contracted with a local day care center operated by the Young Women's Christian Association ("YWCA") to transport children between their homes and the YWCA. On the day of Randy's death, King had driven a group of children, including Randy, to the YWCA. Through a tragic oversight, Randy was not removed from the van at the YWCA, but, instead, was unknowingly transported back to the Center, where he remained in the parked van until his death. The jury returned a general verdict against the Center and King for the wrongful death of Randy in the amount of $250,000, and a judgment was entered on that verdict. 2
At the time of Randy's death, the general liability portion of the policy issued by St. Paul designating the Center and King as named insureds was in effect. That portion of the policy provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
"We'll pay amounts you and others protected under this agreement are legally required to pay as damages for a covered bodily injury ... claim resulting from an accidental event."
The general liability portion of the policy specifically provided coverage for death resulting from a "bodily injury," and it defines "accidental event" as any event that results in bodily injury that the insured did not expect or intend to happen. This portion of the policy also contains an exclusion that provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
The van in which Randy died fits within the definition of "auto" contained in the general liability portion of the policy.
St. Paul relied on the automobile exclusion to deny coverage to the Center and King under the general liability portion of the policy. St. Paul contends that Randy's death arose out of, and was due to, the Center's ownership and use of the van and, therefore, that the exclusion prevents coverage. The Center argues that none of the allegations in the wrongful death action (i.e., that the Center and King were negligent in transporting Randy; that the Center was negligent in its training of King; and that the Center was negligent in not implementing certain policies and procedures to protect Randy) were based on the Center's ownership or use of the van. We disagree.
It is well established, as the Center points out, that when doubt exists as to whether coverage is provided under an insurance policy, the language used by the insurer must be construed for the benefit of the insured. Likewise, when ambiguity exists in the language of an exclusion, the exclusion will be construed so as to limit the exclusion to the narrowest application reasonable under the wording. Guaranty National Ins. Co. v. Marshall County Board of Educ., 540 So.2d 745 (Ala.1989). However, it is equally well settled that in the absence of statutory provisions to the contrary, insurers have the right to limit their liability by writing policies with narrow coverage. If there is no ambiguity, courts must enforce insurance contracts as written and cannot defeat express provisions in a policy, including exclusions from coverage, by making a new contract for the parties. Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 505 So.2d 362 (Ala.1987). The "auto" exclusion in the general liability portion of St. Paul's policy is not ambiguous. It clearly excludes coverage for any injury, including one that results in death, due to the ownership or use of any "auto," which includes the van in question, owned or operated by the Center or King. Although liability on the part of the Center and King appears to have been predicated on something other than a finding that King had acted negligently in operating the van (i.e., a finding that King had acted negligently in transporting Randy; a finding that the Center had acted negligently in not properly training or supervising King; or a finding that the Center had acted negligently in not implementing certain policies or procedures to protect Randy), the fact remains that Randy died in the van while it was being used by the Center to provide transportation services to the communities it serves. We conclude, therefore, that Randy's death was due to the ownership or use of the van and, consequently, that the automobile exclusion prevents coverage under the general liability portion of the policy.
The professional liability portion of the policy provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Madison Cnty. v. Evanston Ins. Co.
...insurers have the right to limit their liability by writing policies with narrow coverage." St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Chilton–Shelby Mental Health Ctr. , 595 So.2d 1375, 1377 (Ala. 1992).B. Evanston's Policies Do Not Cover Constitutional Tort Claims Pursuant to the referenced legal stand......
-
Madison Cnty. v. Evanston Ins. Co.
...insurers have the right to limit their liability by writing policies with narrow coverage." St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Chilton-Shelby Mental Health Ctr., 595 So.2d 1375, 1377 (Ala. 1992). B. Evanston's Policies Do Not Cover Constitutional Tort Claims Pursuant to the referenced legal stand......
-
Worthington Fed. Bank v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co.
...policy, the language used by the insurer must be construed for the benefit of the insured." St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Chilton–Shelby Mental Health Ctr., 595 So.2d 1375, 1377 (Ala.1992). Further, "when ambiguity exists in the language of an exclusion, the exclusion will be construed so as......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wheelwright Trucking Co.
...and in favor of coverage. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Slade, 747 So.2d 293, 309 (Ala.1999); St. Paul Mercury Ins. v. Chilton-Shelby Mental Health Ctr., 595 So.2d 1375, 1377 (Ala. 1992); Sullivan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 513 So.2d 992, 994 (Ala. 1987); Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. In......
-
Determining an Insurer's Duty to Defend
...Jones v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 357 So. 2d 976, 977 (Ala. 1978); St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Chilton-Shelby Mental Health Ctr., 595 So. 2d 1375, 1377 (Ala. 1992). Policy language that is "reasonably susceptible to two or more constructions," or whose meaning is subject to "reasonable......