Haisten v. Audubon Indem. Co.
Citation | 642 So.2d 404 |
Parties | Elizabeth HAISTEN, as administratrix of the Estate of James Larry Haisten, deceased; et al. v. AUDUBON INDEMNITY COMPANY. J.E. O'TOOLE ENGINEERING COMPANY v. AUDUBON INDEMNITY COMPANY. 1921326, 1921378. |
Decision Date | 06 May 1994 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Leah O. Taylor of Taylor & Roberson, Birmingham, for Elizabeth Haisten.
Tom Burgess and Thomas S. Hale of London, Yancey, Elliott & Burgess, Birmingham, for J.E. O'Toole Engineering Co.
J. Mitchell Frost, Jr. of Dominick, Fletcher, Yeilding, Wood & Lloyd, Birmingham, for appellee.
These appeals are from a judgment declaring that the plaintiff insurer is not obligated to provide coverage for the acts alleged in an underlying tort action. One appeal questions whether the trial court erred in holding applicable a provision in the insurance policy excluding coverage for injuries "expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured." The other appeal questions whether the trial court erred in holding that a party who had contracted for indemnity from the insured was not entitled to coverage as an additional insured, because of cases holding that indemnity contracts such as the one at issue are void.
James Larry Haisten was an employee of Bunt Construction Company; he died when a trench collapsed on him while he was working. Bunt Construction was insured by Audubon Indemnity Company under a commercial general liability policy. The work in which Bunt Construction was engaged when Haisten died was a sewer project for the City of Cullman. J.E. O'Toole Engineering Company was the engineer for the project. The contract for the project required Bunt to maintain liability insurance and to "indemnify and save harmless the Owner and Engineer."
Mr. Haisten's widow, as administratrix of his estate, brought an action against James H. Bunt, the owner of Bunt Construction. She alleged that Bunt, as a co-employee of Haisten's, had willfully removed a safety device from the trench and had willfully violated a written safety rule and that those willful actions had caused Mr. Haisten's death. By these allegations she sought to come under the provisions of §§ 25-5-11(c)(2) and -(c)(4), respectively, which allow recovery against co-employees for the injurious conduct defined therein as "willful conduct." Her action also sought recovery from O'Toole Engineering based on what she alleged to be wrongful conduct causing or contributing to the trench collapse.
Audubon thereupon brought an action seeking a declaration that Bunt Construction's policy of insurance provided no coverage to either James H. Bunt or O'Toole Engineering for the acts alleged in Mrs. Haisten's complaint. As to the claims against Mr. Bunt, Audubon asserted that, because Mrs. Haisten could recover only if she proved "willful conduct" as defined in § 25-5-11(c), any recovery would necessarily be excluded from coverage, because the policy does not cover injuries "expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured."
The circuit court, in agreeing with this argument, treated the claims as falling under § 25-5-11(c)(1), which defines "willful conduct" as "A purpose or intent or design to injure another...." The circuit court appears to have read Reed v. Brunson, 527 So.2d 102, 119 (Ala.1988), as incorporating this portion of § 25-5-11(c)(1) into -(c)(2) and -(c)(4). Section 25-5-11(c)(2) provides, in pertinent part:
"['Willful conduct' means] [t]he willful and intentional removal from a machine of a safety guard or safety device provided by the manufacturer of the machine with knowledge that injury or death would likely or probably result from the removal...."
Section 25-5-11(c)(4) provides, in part:
"['Willful conduct' means] [w]illful and intentional violation of a specific written safety rule of the employer after written notice to the violating employee by another employee who, within six months after the date of receipt of the written notice, suffers injury resulting in death or permanent total disability as a proximate result of the willful and intentional violation."
After discussing Reed v. Brunson and other cases, the trial court concluded:
This conclusion is a misreading of the separate fields of operation of § 25-5-11(c)(1), -(c)(2), and -(c)(4). As shown by the above quotations, neither -(c)(2) nor -(c)(4) requires a purpose, intent, or design to injure. See, e.g., Harris v. Gill, 585 So.2d 831 (Ala.1991); Pressley v. Wiltz, 565 So.2d 26 (Ala.1990); Bailey v. Hogg, 547 So.2d 498 (Ala.1989). Subsection -(c)(2) requires "willful and intentional removal ... of a ... safety device ... with knowledge that injury or death would likely or probably result." Subsection -(c)(4) requires "[w]illful and intentional violation of a ... safety rule" after notice of prior violations.
This Court has consistently interpreted insurance exclusions phrased exactly like the one at issue here, excluding coverage for injuries "expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured," as requiring a subjective analysis of what the insured expected or intended.
Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 454 So.2d 921, 925 (Ala.1984); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Davis, 612 So.2d 458 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Jenkins
... ... Bailey v. Hogg, 547 So.2d 498, 499-500 (Ala.1989). Further, in Haisten v. Audubon Indem. Co., 642 So.2d 404, 407 (Ala. 1994), the Alabama Supreme Court closed the door ... ...
-
Alabama Plating Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.
... ... Under Alabama law, this inquiry is a subjective test, Haisten v. Audubon Indem. Co, 642 So.2d 404 (Ala.1994), and Alabama Plating has presented substantial ... ...
-
Tanner v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
... ... Porterfield v. Audubon Indem. Co., 856 So.2d 789, 791-92 (Ala.2002) ... "It is well settled `that ... State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 661 So.2d 232, 233 (Ala.1995) ; Haisten v. Audubon Indem. Co., 642 So.2d 404, 406-07 (Ala. 1994) ; and Capital Alliance Ins. Co. v ... ...
-
Ex parte Canada
... ... See Pettibone v. Tyson, 794 So.2d 377, 379 (Ala.2001); Haisten v. Audubon Indem. Co., 642 So.2d 404 (Ala.1994) ... B. Evidence that the ... ...