Ex parte O'Hare
Decision Date | 03 June 1983 |
Citation | 432 So.2d 1300 |
Parties | Ex parte James J. O'HARE, as Administrator of the Estate of Nora O'Hare, Deceased. (Re James J. O'HARE, as Administrator of the Estate of Nora O'Hare, Deceased v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY). 81-715. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Joseph M. Brown, Jr. of Cunningham, Bounds, Yance, Crowder & Brown, Mobile, for petitioner.
Richard W. Vollmer, Jr. and Patricia K. Olney of Reams, Wood, Vollmer, Philips, Killion & Brooks, Mobile, for respondent.
We granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Civil Appeals was correct in its holding in the present case. That court determined that the exclusion of an "insured motor vehicle" from the definition of "uninsured motor vehicle" in the policy in question was not void and unenforceable as an attempt to restrict the uninsured motorist coverage of the Alabama Uninsured Motorist Statute. We affirm.
The facts made the basis of this suit are that on September 13, 1979, Nora O'Hare, wife of the plaintiff, James J. O'Hare, was involved in a one-car accident and sustained injuries which resulted in her death. Mrs. O'Hare was a passenger in her own automobile, which was being driven by Sheldon P. Weeks. The O'Hare car was insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) but the driver, Weeks, carried no separate insurance. At issue is count three of plaintiff's complaint, which sought recovery of $10,000 from State Farm under the uninsured motorist provisions of Mrs. O'Hare's automobile policy. Summary judgment was granted State Farm as to count three on the grounds that under the policy her car was an "insured motor vehicle" and the uninsured motorist provisions exclude coverage as to an insured vehicle. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed and denied rehearing, and plaintiff now petitions this Court for relief.
The question presented for review is whether Mrs. O'Hare was injured by the operator of an "uninsured motor vehicle." We hold that she was not and affirm.
Petitioner James O'Hare sets forth basically the same argument as one recently addressed by this Court in Watts v. Preferred Risk Mutual Ins. Co., 423 So.2d 171 (Ala.1982). In Watts the plaintiffs argued that if there was no coverage for the driver under the liability provision, due to a violation of the policy's notice requirements, then the driver became an uninsured motorist. Such a position would have allowed recovery under the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy. In the present case, O'Hare asserts that uninsured motorist coverage should be available because there is no liability coverage of the insured due to a policy exclusion. The exclusion specifically prohibits recovery for bodily injury by the insured or any resident family member under the liability provision. Writing for the Court in Watts, Justice Shores stated: "The argument is an interesting one, but not persuasive."
To support his contention here that recovery should be allowed under the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy, petitioner claims two things. First he asserts that the policy in question is ambiguous in its definition of the words "uninsured" and "insured" within the context of both the liability and uninsured motorist provisions; thus, he says they should be construed against the insurer to allow coverage for the insured. Next, he argues that the rationale used in applying the "household exclusion" to deny coverage restricts the uninsured motorist coverage mandated by Code of Ala.1975, § 32-7-23.
The Alabama Uninsured Motorist Statute, Code of 1975, § 32-7-23, provides in pertinent part:
"No automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto, in limits for bodily injury or death set forth in subsection (c) of section 32-7-6, ... for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom...." (Emphasis added.)
As stated in Watts, supra:
The intent of the uninsured motorist coverage issued in the State Farm policy is found in the following pertinent provisions. An examination of the policy language is necessary to determine whether an uninsured motor vehicle is involved in the present case.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Locey By and Through Locey v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho
... ... [115 Idaho 27] Our research indicates that, for a variety of reasons, a majority of states permit such an exclusion. See Ex Parte O'Hare, 432 So.2d 1300 (Ala.1983); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gibbs, 139 Ariz. 274, 678 P.2d 459 (1983) (but cf. Darner Motor Sales v ... ...
-
Grimes v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 1150041.
... ... Ex parte O'Hare , 432 So.2d 1300 (Ala. 1983) ; Bell v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America , 355 So.2d 335 (Ala. 1978) ; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Pete Wilson Roofing & ... ...
-
Shalimar Contractors v. American States Ins. Co.
... ... Allstate Insurance Company, 571 So.2d 1001, 1003 (Ala.1990); see also Ex Parte O'Hare, 432 So.2d 1300 (Ala.1983); Bell v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America, 355 So.2d 335 (Ala.1978). An insurance contract, like other contracts, ... ...
-
Bailey v. Fed. Ins. Co.
... ... the validity of insurance contract provisions, including those which exclude or limit coverage, by comparing them with the insurance code, Ex parte O'Hare , 432 So.2d 1300, 13021303 (Ala. 1983) ; Higgins v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. , 291 Ala. 462, 467, 282 So.2d 301 (Ala. 1973). Relevant here, ... ...
-
More Uninsured/underinsured Motorist Coverage—an Addition to the Lawyers' Desk Reference
...that following Mitchell, the Supreme Court of Alabama addressed another claim arising out of a one-vehicle accident in Ex parte O'Hare, 432 So. 2d 1300 (Ala. 1983). State Farm's policy included a provision which stated that an uninsured motor vehicle did not include an insured motor vehicle......