Best v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., AUTO-OWNERS
| Decision Date | 24 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | AUTO-OWNERS |
| Citation | 540 So.2d 1381 |
| Parties | William BEST, Jr. v.INSURANCE COMPANY. 87-1347. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
R. Wayne Wolfe of Wolfe & Jones, Huntsville, for appellant.
Patrick M. Lamar of Lanier, Ford, Shaver & Payne, Huntsville, for appellee.
This case involves an underinsured motorist coverage question, and presents a conflict of laws question regarding which of two states' laws should apply. The parties do not dispute the facts, which were stipulated in the trial court. These facts are as follows:
Upon consideration of the stipulated facts, the exhibits, and argument of counsel, the trial court determined that Best was "not entitled to recover benefits for underinsured motorist bodily injury damage under the subject policy."
The issue before us is whether the contractual obligations of the parties are governed by the subject policy, which was issued in South Carolina, or by the laws of the State of Alabama.
Insofar as we can determine, there are only two circumstances under which Best would be entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits under the subject policy. The first would be if Best had purchased underinsured motorist coverage. The second would be if the policy contains language calling for application of Alabama law pertaining to underinsured motorist coverage.
Because both parties agree that Best has no underinsured motorist coverage under the policy, it is necessary for us to determine only whether the second possible situation exists.
Best rests his argument that the subject policy creates underinsured motorist coverage upon the following clause contained therein:
Best argues that this clause incorporates every provision of the Alabama Motor Vehicle Safety-Responsibility Act into the contract. We disagree.
In South Carolina, where the contract was executed, there is a distinction between uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. Uninsured motorist coverage is mandatory, while underinsured motorist coverage is optional. In short, underinsured motorist coverage must be offered, but the prospective insured has the prerogative of rejecting such coverage. See S.C.Code Ann., § 56-9-830 (1976) and § 56-9-831 (Supp.1986).
Alabama, on the other hand, makes no distinction between uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. The two are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown Mach. Works & Supply Co., Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America
...be enforced as written. See, e.g., id.; Gardner v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc., 582 So.2d 1094, 1096 (Ala.1991) (citing Best v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 540 So.2d 1381 (Ala.1989)). While the fact that an insurance policy is written by the insurance company is often noted in conjunction with the p......
-
Browder v. General Motors Corp.
...Ala. 606, 243 So.2d 736 (1970), such coverage is not compulsory and may be rejected by the insured. See Ala Code § 32-7-23 (1975); Best, 540 So.2d at 1382; Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Thomas, 337 So.2d 365 (Ala.Civ.App.1976); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Martin, 292 Ala. 103, 289 So.2d ......
-
Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...the available underinsured-motorist benefits without reviewing whether Tennessee conflicts law applies); Best v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 540 So.2d 1381, 1381-83 (Ala.1989)(stating that the conflict-of-laws issue was presented in underinsured-motorist-coverage case, and, without reference to S......
-
Garnett v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...court entered summary judgment for Allstate. Allstate's liability under its contract is governed by Georgia law. Best v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 540 So.2d 1381 (Ala.1989); Davis v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Illinois, Inc., 456 So.2d 302 (Ala.1984); American Interstate Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Hollid......