Lambert v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 March 1976
• Citation: Lambert v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 331 So.2d 260 (Ala. 1976)
• Parties: Edwin E. LAMBERT v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corp. and St. Paul Insurance Co., a corp. SC 1255.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 260

331 So.2d 260

Edwin E. LAMBERT v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corp. and St. Paul Insurance Co., a corp.

SC 1255.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 26, 1976.

Rehearing Denied May 7, 1976.

Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton and James J. Thompson, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.

Lyman H. Harris, Birmingham, for appellee, Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

BLOODWORTH, Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in which it was held that appellant Lambert, an employee of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and an 'insured' under the uninsured motorist coverage provided by Seaboard's 'fleet' insurance policy with Liberty Mutual, cannot 'stack' Seaboard's coverages on any vehicle other than the one in which he was riding at the time of his accident.

On February 7, 1973, appellant Lambert (plaintiff below) was injured while riding as a passenger in a vehicle owned by Seaboard which collided with a vehicle driven by an uninsured motorist.

Appellee Liberty Mutual insured Seaboard's entire fleet of 1,699 vehicles under one policy. Since the vehicles are located in several states, the insurance policy contains different endorsements to provide coverage in accordance with the requirements of the different states. Approximately fifty of the vehicles are principally garaged in Alabama. The policy requires a separate premium of $4.00 for each vehicle for the uninsured motorist coverage and sets policy limits of $10,000 per vehicle for each person injured. Although Seaboard is the 'named insured' under this policy, Lambert is also an 'insured'--for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage--by virtue of his occupancy of an insured vehicle, because the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy define 'insured' to include any other person while occupying an insured highway vehicle; . . .'

Lambert is the 'named insured' in a policy of insurance issued to him by St. Paul Insurance Company which provided uninsured motorist coverage on Lambert's two personally owned vehicles, with limits of $20,000.

Lambert entered suit against both insurers claiming $1,000,000 in uninsured motorist coverage by seeking to 'stack':

(1) $20,000 under the St. Paul policy;

(2) $10,000 under the Seaboard policy issued by Liberty Mutual for the vehicle in which Lambert was riding as a passenger; and,

(3) the maximum of Seaboard's coverage under Liberty Mutual's policy on all of Seaboard's vehicles in all states.

The trial judge granted Liberty Mutual's motion for summary judgment by:

(1) rendering judgment for.$19,000 under the St. Paul policy (reduction of $1,000 from policy limits was by agreement);

(2) rendering judgment for $10,000 under Seaboard's policy with Liberty Mutual for the vehicle in which Lambert was riding as a passenger; and,

(3) denying judgment to Lambert under the policy with Liberty Mutual on all the other Seaboard vehicles.

It is from the third portion ((3)) of the summary judgment that appellant Lambert appeals. No question is raised on this appeal as to the other two portions of the judgment.

Consequently, the issue is whether Lambert, who is not the 'named insured' and who has not paid any premium but who is an 'insured' solely by virtue of his occupancy, is entitled to 'stack' coverages under the Seaboard-Liberty Mutual policy on All Seaboard's vehicles. We hold that he is not and affirm the judgment of the trial judge.

Lambert contends that there is no difference between a 'fleet' or 'commercial' policy and a 'family combination automobile' policy insofar as 'stacking' is concerned under uninsured motorist coverage. Therefore, since this Court has held 'stacking' is permitted under the 'family combination automobile' policy, he contends, we ought to extend the doctrine to 'fleet' policies as well. In support of his contention, Lambert cites: State Farm Automobile Ins. Co. v. Reaves, 292 Ala. 218, 292 So.2d 95 (1974); Employers Liab. Assurance Corp. v. Jackson, 289 Ala. 673, 270 So.2d 806 (1972); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Cahoon, 287 Ala. 462, 252 So.2d 619 (1971); Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Jones, 286 Ala. 606, 243 So.2d 736 (1970).

Liberty Mutual, on the other hand, contends that in none of these cases are we presented with the precise issue in this case. Liberty Mutual cites two cases which have directly considered this issue: Cunningham v. Ins. Co. of North America, 213 Va. 72, 189 S.E.2d 832 (1972), and Witcher v. Travelers Indemn. Co., Civil Action No. 73--1023, (N.D.Ala., Sept. 10, 1974) (Lynne, J., unreported). Both cases denied passengers (who were 'insureds' by virtue of permissive occupancy) the right to 'stack' under fleet policies. Liberty Mutual adds that Lambert has cited no precedent in point for the proposal he espouses. Liberty Mutual states that, after extensive research, it has not found any case in any jurisdiction which permits stacking under a commercial or fleet policy of insurance covering fleet vehicles when they were not being occupied by the named insured at the time of his accident.

Moreover, Liberty Mutual contends that it should not be liable for more than $10,000 under the fleet policy because Lambert was occupying only the one vehicle as a passenger at the time of the accident, and because the premium was paid by the employer Seaboard, not by Lambert.

Our previous Alabama cases allowing stacking have fallen generally into two separate categories.

This Court first allowed stacking in a case in which the insured-passenger sought to stack coverage under his own personal uninsured motorist policy onto coverage under a policy owned by the driver. In Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Jones, 286 Ala. 606, 243 So.2d 736 (1970), this Court held that the passenger, who was injured in a collision with an uninsured motorist, was not only entitled to coverage under his own uninsured motorist policy but was also entitled to coverage under the driver's policy.

Under the second category of cases in which this Court has permitted stacking, the injured party seeks to stack coverages under separate uninsured motorist coverages on multiple vehicles insured under one policy which lists him as the named insured. In Employers Liab. Assurance Corp. v. Jackson, 289 Ala. 673, 270 So.2d 806 (1972), the doctrine of stacking coverages was extended to cover this second category of cases. Under the rule set out in Jackson, the insured is permitted to stack benefits under the uninsured motorist provisions of his personal policy where he has paid separate premiums for each vehicle insured under one multivehicle policy.

Now, by this appeal, Lambert urges this Court to extend the concept of stacking to cases falling in a third factual category. Lambert contends that an injured insured should be allowed to stack coverages on multiple vehicles insured under one policy where the policy in question has been purchased and is owned by another party, that party being the named insured. This contention presents a question of first impression in Alabama. However, in at least two cases the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has been presented with this issue. That court held in both cases that it would not extend the doctrine of stacking to cover cases falling under this third category. See Long v. United States Fidelity and Guar. Co., 396 F.Supp. 966 (N.D.Ala.1975) (Lynne, J.); Witcher v. Travelers Indemn. Co., Civil Action No. 73--1023 (N.D.Ala., Sept. 10, 1974) (Lynne, J., unreported.)

The rationale underlying the doctrine of stacking as it has evolved in Alabama has been recently articulated by this Court in Great Cent. Ins. Co. v. Edge, 292 Ala. 613, 298 So.2d 607 (1974). In that case, a named insured, while a pedestrian, was struck and injured by an uninsured motorist. He was allowed to stack coverages on several vehicles insured under the same policy even though the policy included a limiting clause which arguably prohibited such recovery. In the language of that opinion, 'the law of this state with respect to uninsured motorist coverage precludes an insurer from collecting a premium for certain coverage, then taking that coverage away by a limiting clause, under the rationale that a contrary holding would be in violation of the uninsured motorist insurance statute.' Id. at 616, 298 So.2d at 609. The Court added that its opinion in Jackson 'focused on the real issue, that being the fact that the insured had paid two premiums--that in effect the (insureds) had purchased two policies of insurance on one form and that the public policy expressed in the uninsured motorists' insurance statute prevented the insurance company from limiting its liability under such circumstances.' Id. at 617, 298 So.2d at 610.

I.

Not only may these stacking cases be analyzed in terms of their statutory underpinnings, they may also be analyzed as a further application of the established rule in Alabama that 'the insured is entitled to the protection which he may Reasonably expect from the terms of the policy he purchases.' Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Chapman, 240 Ala. 599, 602, 200 So. 425, 427 (1941) (emphasis added).

As Professor Keeton analyzes it, the principle of Reasonable expectations insures that '(t)he objectively reasonable expectations of applicants and intended beneficiaries regarding the terms of insurance contracts will be honored even though painstaking study of the policy provisions would have negated those expectations.' R. Keeton, Basic Text on Insurance Law § 6.3(a), at 351 (1971).

By permitting the insured to stack his coverages, this Court has simply honored the reasonable expectation of the 'named insured' that his payment of an additional premium will result in increased coverage for those falling within the definition of the 'named insured,' and where an expectation of this nature is in conflict with a limiting clause in the policy, the resulting ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the insured due to the nature of insurance contracts. See generally Note,...