Funderburg v. BLACK'S INS. AGENCY

Decision Date27 August 1999
Citation743 So.2d 472
PartiesJoseph FUNDERBURG and Annie Funderburg v. BLACK'S INSURANCE AGENCY et al.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

Earl P. Underwood, Jr., of Underwood & Associates, P.C., Anniston, for appellants.

William A. Scott, Jr., and James C. Ayers, Jr., of Clark & Scott, P.C., Birmingham, for appellees Black's Insurance Agency.

Clifton S. Price II of Kracke, Thompson & Ellis, P.C., Birmingham, for appellees Clarendon National Insurance Company.

THOMPSON, Judge.

Joseph and Annie Funderburg, husband and wife, appeal a summary judgment in favor of Clarendon National Insurance Company ("Clarendon") and Black's Insurance Agency ("Black's") on Joseph Funderburg's claim for uninsured-motorist benefits. On October 8, 1997, Joseph Funderburg was involved in an automobile accident with an alleged uninsured motorist, while operating his 1990 Chevrolet pickup truck. The Funderburgs made a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under Annie Funderburg's policy with Clarendon for damage Joseph Funderburg incurred in the collision. Clarendon denied the claim because Joseph Funderburg was a named excluded driver under his wife's policy with Clarendon.

On May 8, 1998, the Funderburgs sued Black's Insurance Agency and Clarendon, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and badfaith refusal to pay a claim. Clarendon moved for a summary judgment on July 27, 1998. Following a hearing, on October 15, 1998, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Clarendon on the Funderburgs' claims. Black's moved for a summary judgment on October 28, 1998. On February 3, 1999, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Black's on all of the Funderburgs' claims. The Funderburgs appealed to the supreme court; that court transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 12-2-7. Based on our review of the applicable law and the facts of the present case, we affirm the summary judgments.

The material facts are undisputed. The issue, then, is whether, as a matter of law, Joseph Funderburg has uninsured motorist coverage under the automobile liability policy issued by Clarendon to his wife.

The Funderburgs claim that the trial court erred in determining that the exclusion of Joseph Funderburg as a named driver precluded him from receiving uninsured-motorist benefits under the policy. The Funderburgs cite Reed v. Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Co., 549 So.2d 3 (Ala.1989), in support of this argument. In Reed our supreme court considered whether the insured's son was precluded from recovering uninsured-motorist benefits, on the basis that he was specifically named in the following exclusion:

"Subject to all other terms and conditions of the policy to which this endorsement is attached it is understood and agreed by and between the Company and the Named Assured that as a part of the consideration for the issuance or continuance of this policy, in addition to the premium charged, it is hereby understood and agreed that the policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be in force and effect while any motor vehicle which would be covered by this policy is being operated by [in the space provided following this clause was written `Jonathan T. Reed (son)']."

The Reed court held that the endorsement did not exclude uninsured-motorist coverage for damage Jonathan Reed suffered when he collided with an uninsured motorist while operating his motorcycle. 549 So.2d at 6. In reaching this conclusion, the Reed court emphasized the express condition —"while any motor vehicle which would be covered by this policy is being operated by Jonathan T. Reed"—which was placed on the coverage exclusion. The Reed court reasoned that the motorcycle Reed was driving when the accident occurred was not a covered vehicle under the policy, and, therefore, that the required condition was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Chism
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • July 7, 2017
    ...(operating a covered vehicle) was not met. Id. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals revisited the Reed holding in Funderburg v. Black's Insurance Agency, 743 So. 2d 472 (1999), and looked to the policy language at issue in that contract. The exclusion at issue in Funderburg read: "NO COVERAGE......
1 books & journal articles
  • More Uninsured/underinsured Motorist Coverage—an Addition to the Lawyers' Desk Reference
    • United States
    • Alabama State Bar Alabama Lawyer No. 74-2, March 2013
    • Invalid date
    ...under a policy has been interpreted as rejection of uninsured motorist coverage as to that person. Funderburg v. Black's Ins. Agency, 743 So. 2d 472 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). However, rejection of the coverage on one policy does not prevent recovery of UM benefits under another policy covering......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT