Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | SHORES; HOOPER |
| Citation | 675 So.2d 377 |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1996 |
| Parties | ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Glenn E. SKELTON. 1941402. |
Page 377
v.
Glenn E. SKELTON.
Page 378
Carl Robert Gottlieb, Jr. and William W. Watts III of Reams, Philips, Brooks, Schell, Gaston & Hudson, P.C., Mobile, for Appellant.
Lawrence B. Voit and Thomas G.F. Landry of Silver & Voit, Mobile, for Appellee.
SHORES, Justice.
This case involves the question whether injuries suffered by Glenn E. Skelton arose "out of the ownership, maintenance or use" of an uninsured automobile as required for him to be covered under the terms of an automobile liability insurance policy issued to him by Allstate Insurance Company. We conclude that they did not.
These facts, taken primarily from the trial court's order, are undisputed: On March 10, 1993, between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m., Skelton was driving his automobile south on Interstate Highway 65 in Mobile. He and his 16-year-old son Ian were returning from Birmingham, where they had attended the funeral of Skelton's father-in-law. A family friend, Elaine Mixon, and her 16-year-old son were also driving back to Mobile from the same funeral. They were traveling ahead of the Skelton vehicle on I-65. By prearrangement, the two vehicles were traveling together. As the Mixon vehicle approached the Moffat Road interchange, a third vehicle, driven by Milyce A. Wright and occupied by her husband Dell L. Wright as a passenger, pulled out from Moffat road onto the right south-bound lane of I-65 in front of the Mixon vehicle. The Wright vehicle began engaging in dangerous and reckless maneuvers on the highway, including slowing down abruptly and speeding up rapidly, for no apparent reason. This caused Mixon to slam on her brakes each time the Wright vehicle slowed down abruptly. There was moderate to heavy traffic on I-65 at the time. Mixon flashed her lights once at the Wright vehicle in front of her during these dangerous maneuvers. As soon as she could safely do so, Mixon pulled around the Wright vehicle on the left and passed it; thereupon, the Wright vehicle speeded up and passed the Mixon vehicle at a high rate of speed on the left shoulder of the highway, almost hitting a median barricade. Dell Wright, who was sitting in the passenger's seat, then started throwing objects out of his vehicle; some of those objects hit the Mixon vehicle. Mixon was not sure what the objects were and thought they may have been pieces of gravel or ice. The Wright vehicle then pulled alongside the Mixon vehicle, began sliding to its right toward Mixon, and forced the Mixon vehicle off the road onto the right shoulder of I-65 just north of the Airport Boulevard interchange.
The driver of the Mixon vehicle stopped to avoid colliding with the Wright vehicle, and the Wright vehicle stopped just in front of Mixon. Mixon was then holding her automobile telephone in her hand. Immediately after the two cars stopped, Dell Wright got out of his vehicle and walked in front of the Mixon vehicle. He stood in front of it holding a pistol, which he pointed at Mixon while he shouted obscenities at her and threatened to kill her. He smashed the windshield of Mixon's vehicle with the butt of the pistol he was brandishing.
Glenn Skelton, who had been traveling behind the Mixon vehicle, observed the dangerous and reckless movements of the Wright vehicle and tried to keep up with Mixon as she passed the Wrights. He saw an arm coming out of the passenger window of the Wright vehicle and making a throwing action.
Page 379
He saw the Wright vehicle force the Mixon vehicle off the road. Skelton negotiated through the traffic and stopped ahead of the other two vehicles on the shoulder of I-65. After coming to a stop, he backed his vehicle and stopped three or four feet in front of the Wright vehicle. Skelton immediately got out of his car and walked to the rear, toward the Wright and Mixon vehicles, to assist Mixon. He saw Dell Wright menacing Mixon with the pistol, and he saw Mixon's broken windshield. Dell Wright turned and walked toward Skelton. When Skelton was even with the right rear wheel of the Wright vehicle, Dell Wright struck Skelton with a pistol on the left side of the face. As Skelton staggered and began to fall, Wright struck him again with the pistol in the left jaw. Skelton was dazed and only partially conscious. Milyce Wright was outside her vehicle at the time of the assault on Skelton. She and her husband got back into their automobile and drove off. Mixon dialed 911 on her automobile telephone; law enforcement and medical personnel arrived soon thereafter. Skelton suffered serious and painful injuries. He was flown to the Eye Foundation Hospital in Birmingham for specialized medical attention and was hospitalized for several months. He suffered skull fractures and damage to his sinuses and permanently lost the sight in his left eye. He still requires medical attention and still experiences pain on the left side of his face.Dell Wright was subsequently convicted of second degree assault, menacing, and reckless endangerment, as a result of these events of March 10, 1993. His convictions have been affirmed on appeal, and he is presently incarcerated.
Allstate is Skelton's automobile insurance carrier. Skelton sued Allstate for benefits under the uninsured motorist coverage included in his Allstate automobile insurance policy. The Wrights were driving an insured vehicle, but their insurance carrier denied coverage. The trial court awarded uninsured motorist benefits based on Skelton's injuries resulting from the encounter with Dell Wright. Allstate appeals.
The issue here is whether, under these undisputed facts, Skelton's injuries arose "out of the ownership, maintenance or use of an uninsured auto." Only if they did is Skelton entitled to the benefits under the uninsured motorist coverage provided by his policy with Allstate.
When a judge in a nonjury case hears oral testimony, a judgment based on findings of fact based on that testimony will be presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal except for a plain and palpable error. Griggs v. Driftwood Landing, Inc., 620 So.2d 582 (Ala.1993); First National Bank of Mobile v. Duckworth, 502 So.2d 709 (Ala.1987). However, where the facts before the trial court are essentially undisputed and the controversy involves questions of law for the court to consider, the court's judgment carries no presumption of correctness. Beavers v. County of Walker, 645 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1994). Because no material facts are disputed and this appeal focuses on the application of the law to the facts, no presumption of correction is accorded to the trial court's judgment. Therefore, we review de novo the application of the law to the facts of this case. Beavers, supra; Lake Forest Property Owners' Ass'n v. Smith, 571 So.2d 1047 (Ala.1990).
Skelton's Allstate policy provides as follows regarding uninsured motorist coverage:
"We will pay damages for bodily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte G.C., 1040001.
...this Court's review of conclusions of the law and the application of the law to the facts is de novo. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton, 675 So.2d 377, 379 In the instant case, because the lower court impermissibly altered the standards established by this Court to reach the extrajurisdictional ......
-
Pritchett v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...insurance contracts are construed "liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton, 675 So.2d 377 (Ala. 1996). Pritchett argues that under the applicable insurance policy, State Farm was required to pay him for any conceivable loss to his au......
-
King v. Campbell, 1060804.
...questions of law for the court to consider, the court's judgment carries no presumption of correctness.' Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton, 675 So.2d 377, 379 (Ala.1996). Questions of law are reviewed de novo. BT Sec. Corp. v. W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 891 So.2d 310 (Ala.2004)." Alabama Republi......
-
California Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hogan, No. B161245.
...suggest that an automobile insurer intended to insure against such acts." (Allstate Insurance 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 769 Co. v. Skelton (Ala.1996) 675 So.2d 377, Appellants cite three Colorado cases in which coverage for intentional acts was found. The court's reasoning in Cung La v. State Farm Auto......
-
Ex Parte G.C., 1040001.
...this Court's review of conclusions of the law and the application of the law to the facts is de novo. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton, 675 So.2d 377, 379 In the instant case, because the lower court impermissibly altered the standards established by this Court to reach the extrajurisdictional ......
-
Pritchett v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...insurance contracts are construed "liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton, 675 So.2d 377 (Ala. 1996). Pritchett argues that under the applicable insurance policy, State Farm was required to pay him for any conceivable loss to his au......
-
King v. Campbell, 1060804.
...questions of law for the court to consider, the court's judgment carries no presumption of correctness.' Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton, 675 So.2d 377, 379 (Ala.1996). Questions of law are reviewed de novo. BT Sec. Corp. v. W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 891 So.2d 310 (Ala.2004)." Alabama Republi......
-
California Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hogan, No. B161245.
...suggest that an automobile insurer intended to insure against such acts." (Allstate Insurance 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 769 Co. v. Skelton (Ala.1996) 675 So.2d 377, Appellants cite three Colorado cases in which coverage for intentional acts was found. The court's reasoning in Cung La v. State Farm Auto......