Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones
| Citation | 555 So.2d 77 |
| Parties | ALFA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, formerly d/b/a Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Thomas M. JONES, et al. 88-235. |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1989 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Donald N. Spurrier of Clark, Scott, Spurrier, Rice & Henderson, Huntsville, for appellant.
L. Tennent Lee III of Burr & Forman, Huntsville, for appellees.
This case involves the construction of a policy of homeowner's insurance in the context of a negligent supervision claim. 1
On or about January 6, 1987, Christopher Robertson, a minor, was killed while, as a guest at the home of Thomas and Jo Ann Jones, he was operating a go-cart owned by the Joneses on the street on which they live. The child's father brought suit against several parties; the claims against the Joneses all alleged either negligent entrustment of the go-cart or negligent supervision of the child while he was operating the go-cart. The Joneses filed a third-party complaint against Alfa Mutual Insurance Company ("Alfa"), seeking a declaration that under the Joneses' homeowner's insurance policy Alfa was obligated to defend and obligated to provide coverage for the Joneses for the occurrence made the basis of the lawsuit. The trial judge entered judgment for Alfa, and the plaintiff moved the court to vacate that judgment, then amended his complaint, charging the Joneses with negligently failing to supervise his son, but deleting any reference to the go-cart or to the manner in which the decedent died. The trial court then vacated the judgment, and held that Alfa must defend and provide coverage for the Joneses. That judgment was made final pursuant to Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P., and Alfa appealed.
The exclusion clause upon which Alfa relies provides:
We considered a nearly identical clause in Cooter v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 344 So.2d 496 (Ala.1977). In Cooter, the plaintiff pressed a claim on behalf of her incompetent son against the owner of the vehicle that her son was driving. Her theory of recovery was negligent entrustment. State Farm sought a declaration that the vehicle owner's policy of homeowner's insurance did not apply. We found in State Farm's favor. Our holding was premised upon the fact that the nexus between State Farm, the entruster, and the plaintiff was the occurrence in a motor vehicle of the accident made the basis of the lawsuit.
Looking back at the pertinent exclusion clause in this case, we find that no coverage is provided for "bodily injury ... arising out of the ownership ... of ... a motor vehicle owned ... by ... an insured." That clause is unambiguous, just as it was unambiguous in Cooter. And, as the facts of this case demonstrate, the plaintiff's negligent supervision theory seeks recovery for a death arising out of the ownership of a motor vehicle owned by the insureds. That ownership of a motor vehicle is the very nexus between Alfa, the Joneses, and the plaintiff. We hold that the exclusion clause is effective, and that Alfa is neither obligated to provide coverage for, nor to defend, the Joneses. See also Bankert v. Threshermen's Mutual Ins. Co., 110 Wis.2d 469, 329 N.W.2d 150 (1983), wherein the court, interpreting a nearly identical exclusion clause under factually similar circumstances, and relying in part on Cooter, stated:
Id. at 480-81, 329 N.W.2d at 155.
Finally, the Joneses argue that their complaint, as amended, makes no reference to the fact that the accident occurred in connection with the operation of a motor vehicle and that we are forbidden to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marquis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
...automobile accident, as is the fact situation in the case at hand, have found that the policy exclusion applies. See Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 555 So.2d 77 (Ala.1989); Jones v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 937 P.2d 1360 (Alaska 1997); National American Ins. Co. v. Coburn, 209 Cal.App.3d 914, 25......
-
Taylor v. American Fire and Cas. Co.
...from coverage where the acts complained of could not have resulted in injury but for the use of the automobile. See Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 555 So.2d 77 (Ala.1989); National Am. Ins. Co. v. Coburn, 209 Cal.App.3d 914, 257 Cal.Rptr. 591 (1989); Cesarini v. American Druggist Ins. Co., 46......
-
Meyers v. Mississippi Ins. Guar. Ass'n
...v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 265 Kan. 317, 961 P.2d 1213, 1226 (1998) (Larson, J., concurring & dissenting) (citing Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 555 So.2d 77 (Ala.1989); Jones v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 937 P.2d 1360 (Alaska 1997); Nat'l Am. Ins. Co. v. Coburn, 209 Cal.App.3d 914, 257 Cal.R......
-
Owners Ins. Co. v. Mabry
...115, 117). The parties agree that the delivery truck at issue is an "auto" for purposes of the auto exclusion. In Alfa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jones, 555 So. 2d 77 (Ala. 1989), the homeowners were sued for the wrongful death of a minor guest, who was killed while operating the homeowners' g......
-
Insurance - Stephen M. Schatz, Stephen L. Cotter, and Bradley S. Wolff
...Coverage of Homeowner's or Personal Liability Policy, 6 ALR 4th 555 (2004) (including neighboring Alabama, Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 555 So. 2d 77 (Ala. 1989), and Florida, Am. Sur. & Cas. Co. v. Lake Jackson Pizza, Inc., 788 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 2001)). 16. Manning, 264 Ga. App. at 103, 58......
-
Determining an Insurer's Duty to Defend
...the complaint that relieve the insurer from defending. Such facts negated the insurer's duty in Alfa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jones, 555 So. 2d 77 (Ala. 1989). A minor was killed while operating the insureds' go-cart. Id. The policy excluded coverage for injury arising out of the use of a mo......