Huggins v. Hanover Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 November 1982 |
| Parties | David A. HUGGINS and Evelyn R. Huggins v. The HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY. 81-90. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
The original opinion in this case is withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted in its place.
This is an action to recover damages for a loss covered by homeowner's insurance. The trial judge granted a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the insurance company after the presentation of the insureds' evidence. We affirm.
The appellants, David and Evelyn Huggins, owned real estate in Madison County. The appellants built a house on the property, acting as their own contractors. On February 25, 1980, before the house was completed, a fire totally destroyed the building.
Hanover Insurance Company had issued its policy of insurance to the Hugginses, insuring the property against fire loss and other perils. The limit of liability was $120,000.00.
The insurance policy includes the following provisions:
Part c. also provided:
On March 21, 1980, the plaintiffs entered into a contract to purchase a new home for $79,900.00. On May 13, 1980, the plaintiffs met with an adjuster for Hanover for the purpose of settling the fire loss. The plaintiffs were presented with a breakdown of the recovery available under the policy. The full replacement cost of the building was $106,366.21. This figure was derived from an estimate made by a building contractor, Mr. Caneer, after reviewing the blueprints for the house. The applicable depreciation was $21,266.21, and the actual cash value was $85,100.00. The deductible was $100.00, resulting in an actual-cash-value claim of $85,000.00. The breakdown also specified that a supplemental claim could be made for $21,266.21 if the plaintiffs complied with the terms of the "Replacement Cost Coverage." The breakdown is as follows:
Full replacement cost $106,366.21
Less applicable depreciation 21,266.21
Actual-cash-value loss 85,100.00
Less deductible 100.00
Actual cash value claim 85,000.00
Supplemental claim 21,266.21
At the May 13 meeting, Hanover offered an actual-cash-value settlement of $85,000 and documents were presented to plaintiffs for this purpose. Plaintiffs refused to accept the settlement and took copies of the documents to their attorney. On June 3, 1980, plaintiffs accepted a draft for $85,000 and executed a proof of loss, a statement of the full cost of repair or replacement, and a loan receipt. Plaintiffs did not sign a release and the draft contained no words of release of liability.
On July 28, 1980, the Hugginses brought an action to recover an additional $34,900 under the policy. They claimed the difference between the full limit of liability on the policy ($120,000.00) and the amount paid by Hanover ($85,000.00) less the deductible ($100.00). The action was tried before a jury. The trial judge granted the insurance company's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the Hugginses' presentation of evidence.
The issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of the insurer. Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred, because, they say, there was evidence to support their contention that they were due a greater amount under the insurance policy.
A trial judge may properly grant a directed verdict only if, without weighing the credibility of the evidence, the non-moving party does not present a prima facie case. Feaster v. American Liberty Insurance Co., 410 So.2d 399 (Ala.1982); Casey v. Jones, 410 So.2d 5 (Ala.1981). A directed verdict may not properly be granted if there is any evidence to support a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. Id.
As we read this policy under part c., the plaintiffs would be entitled to the smallest of three amounts. Under c. (1)(a) recovery would be $120,000; under c. (1)(b) recovery would be $106,366.21, if the building were rebuilt on the same premises; under c. (1)(c) recovery would be $79,900.00 if we consider the new home purchased by the plaintiffs to be a replacement for the home destroyed.
Subparagraph c. (4) limits all replacement cost recovery under c. (1) to actual cash value until repair or replacement is complete. Subparagraph c. (5) allows for an actual-cash-value recovery prior to replacement and a supplemental claim when replacement is completed.
Hanover asserts that the $85,000 represents the actual cash value of the destroyed home, that this is the amount due under the provisions of the policy, and that the plaintiffs accepted it. Hanover concedes that had the plaintiffs elected to repair or replace the home, then they would be entitled to an additional sum in the amount of the difference between the actual cash value and the replacement cost under subparagraph c. (5). The policy provided that the insurer would pay the cost of replacement without deduction for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D & S Realty, Inc. v. Markel Ins. Co.
...503 F.2d 569 (8th Cir.1974); Bourazak v. North River Insurance Company, 379 F.2d 530 (7th Cir.1967); Huggins v. Hanover Ins. Co., 423 So.2d 147 (Ala.1982); Rhodes v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 79 Ark.App. 230, 86 S.W.3d 401 (2002); Higginbotham v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 143 Ill.App.3d 398, 493 N......
-
Harrington v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co.
... ... 710, 493 N.E.2d 373; National Tea Co. v. Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co., 119 Ill.App.3d 195, 74 Ill.Dec. 704, 456 N.E.2d 206; Huggins v. Hanover Ins. Co., 423 So.2d 147, 150 [Ala]; see also, Ferrara v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 135 A.D.2d 366, 368-369, 521 N.Y.S.2d 668; Annotation, ... ...
-
Ghoman v. New Hampshire Ins. Co.
...Kolls v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 378 F.Supp. 392, 395 (S.D.Iowa), aff'd, 503 F.2d 569 (8th Cir.1974); Huggins v. Hanover Insurance Co., 423 So.2d 147, 150 (Ala. 1982); Higgins v. Insurance Co. of North America, 256 Or. 151, 469 P.2d 766, 772 (1970). Nor can an insured recover repair ......
-
Tonn Family Ltd. Agric. P'ship v. W. Agric. Ins. Co., 120,933
...1994), the replacement cost issue was raised in a motion for summary judgment filed prior to trial.Similarly, in Huggins v. Hanover Ins. Co ., 423 So. 2d 147 (Ala. 1982), the issue of whether the terms of the insurance policy limited the amount of recovery was presented at trial. Also, in W......
-
Can a Policyholder Use Replacement Cost Benefits to Remodel or Replace at Another Location? What is the Standard to Collect Replacement Cost Benefits? The Three Prong Limitation
...use. For example, it could have purchased or built a larger apartment complex at a different location.’...Huggins v. Hanover Ins. Co., 423 So. 2d 147, 150 (Ala. Sup. Ct. 1982) (‘While the new house did not take the place of the fire-damaged house in the same physical location, it did serve ......