Harvey v. Mitchell

Decision Date18 March 1988
PartiesDave A. HARVEY, individually and as father of Brian Keith Harvey, deceased, a minor v. Luther Lee MITCHELL and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. 86-184.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Ralph D. Porch of Merrill, Porch, Doster & Dillon, Anniston, for appellant.

Herbert D. Jones, Jr., of Jones & Cater, Anniston, for appellee Mitchell.

Thomas E. Dick of Sides, Oglesby, Held & Dick, Anniston, for appellee State Farm Auto. Ins. Co.

ALMON, Justice.

Dave A. Harvey brought this wrongful death action against Luther Lee Mitchell to recover for the death of his minor son, Brian Keith Harvey, as the result of a traffic accident. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Harvey's uninsured motorist carrier, was also joined as a defendant. The complaint alleged that Brian Harvey died as a result of the negligent or wanton conduct of defendant Mitchell. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $30,000.00.

On August 31, 1985, at approximately 12:45 p.m., Brian Harvey and another boy, Brian Davis, were traveling north on Terry Road in Anniston, Alabama, when the motorcycle on which they were riding collided with a southbound pickup truck driven by Luther Lee Mitchell at the intersection of Terry Road and Lera Drive. Apparently, Mr. Mitchell made a sudden left turn into the path of the oncoming motorcycle in such a way that there was no opportunity for Brian Harvey, the operator of the motorcycle, to avoid the collision. Both boys died within minutes of the accident.

Luther Mitchell had liability insurance with policy limits of $20,000.00 (the primary coverage). The Harveys had uninsured motorist coverage totaling $220,000.00 (the excess coverage). Apparently, efforts to secure a settlement with the primary carrier failed, resulting in this action. 1

Prior to the trial in this case, the court granted a motion in limine directing that the limits of liability contained in the plaintiff's uninsured motorist coverage not be disclosed to the jury. Harvey appeals, arguing that, because he included in his complaint a count alleging breach of contract, he was entitled to introduce the policies in their entirety, without having the liability limits excised as required by the motion in limine, and that it was error for the trial court to deny his motion for new trial on these grounds.

Appellees argue the recognized rule that insurance coverage or the extent thereof is generally thought to be irrelevant to the issues in a tort case. State Farm points out that, while no prejudice was cited by Harvey resulting from exclusion of the policy limits, the prejudice to an insurer, such as State Farm, resulting from admitting evidence of policy limits would be tremendous. Appellee Mitchell argues that he is entitled to have a jury fix his liability without regard to the amount of insurance available.

The position of Harvey is apparently premised on the notion that, should the jury find in his favor, he is entitled to recover an amount equal to the policy limits contained in the State Farm policies. This position is inconsistent with the current state of the law concerning uninsured motorist insurance coverage.

The purpose of uninsured motorist coverage is to allow the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Weinstein v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Docket No. 34970-2008 (Idaho 6/1/2010)
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 1, 2010
    ...8. Accord Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 378 (9th Cir. 1997) (applying8 California law); Harvey v. Mitchell, 522 So. 2d 771, 773 (Ala. 1988); Borjas v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 33 P.3d 1265, 1269 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Trosky, 918 N.E.2......
  • Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hatfield, 2001-SC-0969-DG.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • December 18, 2003
    ...cases from various foreign jurisdictions which support the essential facts approach. In summary, they are as follows: Harvey v. Mitchell, 522 So.2d 771 (Ala.1988); Hettel v. Rye, 251 Ark. 868, 475 S.W.2d 536 (1972); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elkins, 63 Ill.App.3d 62, 21 Ill.Dec. 66, 381 N.E.2d 1......
  • Fahey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 1998
    ...to recover those insurance policy proceeds. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Dewberry, 383 So.2d 1109 (Fla.App.1980); Harvey v. Mitchell, 522 So.2d 771 (1988); Jones v. Lingenfelder, 537 So.2d 1275 (La.App. 2 Cir., 1989); Ponder v. Groendyke Transport, Inc., 454 So.2d 831 (La.App.3d Cir., 1984)......
  • Pemberton v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • August 25, 1993
    ...231 Kan. 709, 647 P.2d 1335, 1338 (1982) (quoting Winner v. Ratzlaff, 211 Kan. 59, 505 P.2d 606, 610 (1973)); accord Harvey v. Mitchell, 522 So.2d 771, 773 (Ala.1988); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elkins, 63 Ill.App.3d 62, 65, 21 Ill.Dec. 66, 381 N.E.2d 1, 4 (1978), aff'd, 77 Ill.2d 384, 33 Ill.Dec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT