Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Whitehurst, 1 Div. 771.
| Decision Date | 30 March 1933 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 771. |
| Citation | 148 So. 164,226 Ala. 687 |
| Parties | LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO. v. WHITEHURST. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 25, 1933.
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Petition of Minnie Whitehurst for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Life & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Whitehurst, 148 So. 162.
Writ denied.
John N Allen, of Mobile, for petitioner.
Moreau P. Estes and P. M. Estes, both of Nashville, Tenn., opposed.
This cause comes to this court on petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, to review and revise the judgment of that court in the case of Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tenn. v Minnie Whitehurst, etc., 148 So. 162.
In the circuit court of Mobile county the petitioner recovered a judgment against the said Life & Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee on an accident insurance policy, which provided among other things, that the defendant would pay to the plaintiff, who was the named beneficiary, the sum of $1,000 for loss of life of the insured, Thelma Whitehurst, as the result of bodily injuries received by her during the time the policy was in force, and effected solely by external violent, and accidental means by accident to or collision of any private motor driven automobile in which the insured might be riding, and provided further that in such accident there should be some external or visible evidence on said automobile of the collision or accident, and that, of the injury sustained, there should be a visible contusion or wound on the exterior of the body of the insured.
The cause was tried by the circuit court without a jury on an agreed statement of facts, and which statement of facts is set out in extenso in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. So, the question here presented (as it was in the Court of Appeals) is one of law.
The liability of the insurance company, under the plain terms of its policy contract, is limited to death or injury proximately caused by an accident to the automobile in which insured was at the time riding, and of which accident to the automobile there should be some external or visible evidence on the automobile.
It is true that insurance policies should be liberally construed to effect the intentions of the parties, and in cases of doubt a contract will be construed most strongly against the party who framed it, yet the function of courts is to construe them, not to make them.
In 14 R. C. L. pp. 928, 929, the rule is stated, with citation of numerous authorities to support it, that: "In the absence of statutory provisions to the contrary, insurance companies have the same right as individuals to limit their liability, and to impose whatever conditions they please upon their obligations not inconsistent with public policy; and the courts have no right to add anything to their contracts, or to take anything from them."
And our own court, in the recent case of Life & Casualty Ins. Co of Tenn. v. Tollison, 223 Ala. 78, 134 So. 805, 807, gave its approval to the above stated language: "We approve, as of course, the rule that insurance contracts may be and often are made with very limited coverage, the small...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co.
...289 Ala. 719, 272 So.2d 232 (1973); Mooradian v. Canal Insurance Co., 272 Ala. 373, 130 So.2d 915 (1961); Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Whitehurst, 226 Ala. 687, 148 So. 164 (1933). These insurance contracts must be enforced as written and courts cannot defeat express provisions in a policy b......
-
Langley v. Mutual Fire, Marine and Inland Ins. Co.
...and the courts have no right to add anything to their contracts or to take anything from them." ' Life and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Whitehurst, 226 Ala. 687, 148 So. 164 (1933)." Upton, supra, 469 So.2d at 554. (Emphasis Having concluded that the claims-made clause of the Mutual Fire policy is ......
-
Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Miller
...An insurance contract will be construed most strongly against the party who framed it in case of death. Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Whitehurst, 226 Ala. 687, 148 So. 164 (1933); United States Fire Ins. Co. v. McCormick, 286 Ala. 531, 243 So.2d 367 (1970). The contract of insurance will be c......
-
QBE Ins. Corp. v. Whispering Pines Cemetery, LLC
...or to take anything from them." Upton v. Miss. Valley Title Ins. Co., 469 So. 2d 548, 554 (Ala. 1985) (quoting Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Whitehurst, 226 Ala. 687, 148 So. 164 (1933)). However, Alabama courts have held that an insurance policy "shall be construed liberally in favor of the insu......