Blow v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 855 |
| Parties | Hattie BLOW, as Administratrix of the Estate of Maggie Martin, Deceased, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Body Corporate. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Speaks & Burnett, Clanton, for appellant.
Reynolds & Reynolds, Clanton, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Chilton County, Alabama, in Equity.
Hattie Blow, as Administratrix of the Estate of Maggie Martin, deceased, filed a complaint of one count in the Circuit Court of Chilton County, Alabama, on the 30th day of January, 1967, against John Robert Ellison, as defendant, claiming damages in the amount of $50,000.00 under the Homicide Statute, Section 123, Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940 (Recompiled in 1958). It was alleged in the complaint that plaintiff's intestate, Maggie Martin, deceased, was riding in an automobile on a public highway in Chilton County, Alabama, on the 30th day of January, 1966, when said automobile, being operated at the time by the defendant Ellison, was caused to collide with a freight train of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company; that, as a proximate result of said collision, plaintiff's intestate sustained injuries from which she died within a few hours; and that the death of plaintiff's intestate was proximately caused by the willful or wanton conduct of the defendant Ellison. Plaintiff demanded a jury trial in the cause.
Without any further proceedings in the action at law, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a body corporate, as complainant, filed, on the 10th day of March, 1967, in equity, a bill of complaint against Hattie Blow, as administratrix of the estate of Maggie Martin, deceased, and John Robert Ellison, plaintiff and defendant, respectively, in the action at law, seeking a declaratory judgment to determine its obligation to defend the defendant Ellison in the action at law, and also to determine its liability to pay any judgment which might be rendered against the defendant Ellison in the action at law under a policy of automobile liability insurance issued to the defendant Ellison whereby the insurer, State Farm, agreed to indemnify the defendant insured from any liability which said insured might legally become obligated to pay on account of such action. Complainant prayed that a temporary writ of injunction be issued restraining the plaintiff from proceeding further with the action at law, and that upon final hearing the injunction be made permanent.
The equity court issued a temporary writ of injunction as prayed for, holding the action at law in status quo upon the execution of a bond; such a bond was executed and approved, whereupon the temporary writ of injunction issued.
Demurrers to the bill of complaint filed by the respondents were overruled; each respondent then filed an answer. Included in the answer of the respondent Blow, as Administratrix, was a motion to dissolve the temporary writ of injunction.
In its bill of complaint, the complainant averred that it was not obligated to defend the insured in the action at law and that it was not obligated under the automobile liability policy to pay any judgment which might be rendered against said insured, such averments being based upon a provision of the policy under 'EXCLUSIONS--PART I,' to wit:
'This insurance does not apply under: * * * '(i) coverage A, to bodily injury to the insured or any member of the family of the insured residing in the same household as the insured.'
Complainant further averred that at the time of the injury causing the death of Maggie Martin, deceased, she was a member of the family of the insured, John Robert Ellison, residing in the same household as said insured. Respondent Ellison in his answer denied this averment and demanded strict proof thereof. Respondent Blow, as administratrix, also denied the averments of the bill of complaint.
The lower court stated the issue before it to be as follows:
The trial court, upon hearing the evidence ore tenus, rendered a decree in favor of the complainant and against the respondents. It was ordered, adjudged and decreed that the complainant should be absolved from any liability on its contractual obligation to defend the insured in the action at law and that the complainant should be absolved from any liability arising out of any claims based upon the accident or any judgments that might be rendered based on any claim arising out of the accident.
Hattie Blow, as administratrix, appealed from the decree rendered by the trial court. She gave notice of said appeal to the respondent Ellison, who declined to join in the appeal.
Only one witness was called at trial, that being the respondent Ellison, called by the complainant. His testimony tends to establish the facts of the case, condensed for purposes of this opinion, to be as follows: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a body corporate, issued to John R. Ellison a policy of automobile liability insurance whereby John R. Ellison was insured against any loss by claim made for bodily injury which the said insured might legally become obligated to pay; such liability was limited, however, to $10,000.00 for one person and $20,000.00 resulting from any one accident. Maggie Martin, deceased, was a passenger in the automobile being operated by John R. Ellison at the time said automobile was caused to collide with a train, thereby resulting in injuries to Maggie Martin from which she died within a few hours. The accident occurred on the 30th day of January, 1966 at which time the policy was in force. Laura Ellison the wife of John R. Ellison was the sister of Maggie Martin deceased. At the time of the accident the three individuals resided together in a house belonging to the two sisters.
There are two assignments of error on this appeal. Assignment of error 1 is to the effect that the lower court erroneously overruled the motion to dissolve the interlocutory injunction granted State Farm. In brief appellant states: 'This Assignment is necessarily predicated on the alleged erroneous conclusion of the Lower Court as set out in Assignment of Error No. 2.' Assignment of error 2 is that the lower court erred in its determination that Maggie Martin deceased was a member of the family of the insured residing in the same household as the insured on the date of the accident involved. We therefore first direct our attention to assignment of error 2.
We deem it necessary to our disposition of assignment of error 2 that certain pertinent sections of the policy of insurance be set out below.
Coverages A and B set forth under the heading, PART I--LIABILITY AND MEDICAL PAYMENTS,' are as follows:
Under the heading 'EXCLUSIONS--PART I,' there appears the following exclusionary clause:
'This insurance does not apply under: * * * '(i) coverage A, to bodily injury to the insured or any member of the family of the insured residing in the same household as the insured.'
The term 'insured' is defined under the heading 'DEFINITIONS--PART...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...v. Cheeley, 285 Minn. 356, 173 N.W.2d 358 (1969).4 Automobile Club Insurance Company v. Craig, supra; Blow v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 284 Ala. 687, 228 So.2d 4 (1969); Banner Insurance Company v. Avella, supra; Orange v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 443 S.W.2d ......
-
Rabon v. Lee Rabon & Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.
...policy, the policy did not cover injuries to relatives residing in the same household as the insured); Blow v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 228 So. 2d 4, 8-9 (Ala. 1969) (same); Hogg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 162 So. 2d 462, 463 (Ala. 1964) (same); Holloway v. State Farm Mut. Au......
-
Lammers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...trial court correctly held that plaintiff was within the excluded class." (275 Ala. 44, 151 So.2d 776) In Blow v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 284 Ala. 687, 228 So.2d 4, it was said: 'That which was said by the Supreme Court of South Carolina in Hunter v. Southern Farm Bureau Casu......
-
Hutcheson v. Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co.
...drawn 'in light of the clear purposes to be accomplished by the exclusionary clause in question....' Blow v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 284 Ala. 687, 692, 228 So.2d 4, 9 (1969). "In support of its position, the Plaintiff has cited three cases from foreign jurisdictions. State Farm Mu......