Crowley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Citation | 591 So.2d 53 |
| Parties | Don CROWLEY v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY. 1901349. |
| Decision Date | 27 November 1991 |
Page 53
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.
Page 54
M. Wayne Wheeler, Birmingham, for appellant.
Thomas A. Woodall of Woodall & Maddox, P.C. and Rufus E. Elliott III, Birmingham, for appellee.
HOUSTON, Justice.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") filed a declaratory judgment action against Don Crowley, seeking a resolution of coverage questions under a policy of insurance issued to Crowley. The coverage questions regarded an alleged theft loss of a 1981 Jaguar XJ6 automobile ("the vehicle"). By agreement in open court, the parties stipulated as to the exhibits and the nature and substance of the testimony of the witnesses. Based on that stipulation, the trial court held that "[Crowley] never had title to or ownership of the [vehicle] which was the subject of his claim and, therefore, there was no insurance coverage for theft loss on such [vehicle]." Crowley filed post-judgment motions (a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, pursuant to Rule 50(b), Ala.R.Civ.P; a motion for new trial, pursuant to Rule 59(a); a motion to alter, amend, or vacate, pursuant to Rule 59(e); and a motion for a finding of facts, pursuant to Rule 52), all of which the trial court denied. Crowley appealed. We reverse and remand.
Crowley contends that the trial court erroneously held that, because he did not have a certificate of title, he did not own the vehicle and therefore had no coverage.
State Farm contends that the trial court correctly held that there was no coverage because, it contends, Crowley did not present sufficient proof that he owned the vehicle, especially in light of the fact that Crowley failed to show that his name appeared on a certificate of title.
The issue for our review is whether the trial court erred in holding that Crowley did not "own" the vehicle. We are not asked to decide, and we do not decide, whether there was a loss covered by the policy of insurance. Because the trial court decided this case based on documentary evidence and stipulations by the parties, the ore tenus rule does not apply; therefore, there is no presumption of correctness
Page 55
afforded the trial court's holding. See Craig Construction Co. v. Hendrix, 568 So.2d 752 (Ala.1990).There is no need to set out all the evidence before the trial court, but we note the following:
State Farm issued a policy of insurance to Crowley that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Titlemax of Ala., Inc. v. Hambright (In re Hambright)
...a substitute for a valid instrument of conveyance. See Ala. Code §§ 32-8-39(d), 32-8-44(a) ; Crowley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 591 So. 2d 53, 55 (Ala. 1991) (explaining that "the absence of ownership indicated by the absence of a certificate of title...can be rebutted by other evi......
-
Matter of Turner, 97-40191
...manifests intent to sell and grant dominion and control, source of payment, and purchase of insurance coverage. Crowley v. State Farm, 591 So.2d 53, 55 In the present case, the divorce decree dated July 25, 1995 states that Thomas Turner "hereby transfers and assigns to (Carol Turner) as he......
-
Titlemax of Ala., Inc. v. Hambright (In re Hambright)
...a substitute for a valid instrument of conveyance. See Ala. Code §§ 32-8-39(d), 32-8-44(a); Crowley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 591 So.2d 53, 55 (Ala. 1991) (explaining that "the absence of ownership indicated by the absence of a certificate of title ... can be rebutted by other evid......
-
TitleMax of Ala., Inc. v. Hambright (In re Hambright)
...a substitute for a valid instrument of conveyance. See Ala. Code §§ 32-8-39(d), 32-8-44(a); Crowley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 591 So.2d 53, 55 (Ala. 1991) (explaining that "the absence of ownership indicated by the absence of a certificate of title…can be rebutted by other evidence......