Mathis v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., AUTO-OWNERS
| Decision Date | 15 August 1980 |
| Docket Number | AUTO-OWNERS |
| Citation | 387 So.2d 166 |
| Parties | Barbara MATHIS v.INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation. 79-367. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Douglas M. Bates of Adams & Bates, Dothan, for appellant.
T. E. Buntin, Jr. of Buntin & Cobb, Dothan, for appellee.
On July 1, 1977, Barbara Mathis was riding as a passenger on a motorcycle driven by Russell Mathis, when they collided with an automobile operated by James Edward Fountain, an uninsured motorist. She was severely injured. At the time of the accident, she lived with her mother and stepfather, Archie W. Gilley, and owned her own car, which was not covered by uninsured motorist insurance. Her stepfather, however, was the named insured on a policy of automobile insurance issued by Auto-Owners Insurance Company, which insured five separate automobiles owned by Gilley, and provided uninsured motorist coverage. The policy defines "insured" to include:
(A) the first named insured if an individual and not a corporation, firm or partnership, and while residents of the same household, the spouse of the first named insured and, if not owning any automobile, the relatives of either. (Emphasis ours.)
The motorcycle on which Mathis was riding when injured was covered by uninsured motorist insurance, and she has collected on that policy.
In May, 1979, Mathis filed suit against Auto-Owners, alleging negligent or wanton injuries caused by an uninsured motorist, and claiming uninsured motorist coverage under the policy of insurance issued by Auto-Owners to her stepfather, Archie Gilley. Auto-Owners then filed a bill for declaratory judgment against Mathis, asking that her lawsuit be enjoined pending a determination of whether coverage was afforded her under the policy in question. Prosecution of that lawsuit was enjoined, and Auto-Owners' subsequent motion for summary judgment was granted on December 21, 1979. Mathis then initiated this appeal.
Appellant makes two contentions on appeal: (1) that the declaratory judgment was improper because at the time of the filing of the bill, there was an existing suit involving the identical parties and the identical subject matter; and (2) that the limitation of coverage under the policy to resident relatives of the named insured who do not own a car violates the Alabama Uninsured Motorist Act. We agree that the trial court acted improperly in entertaining the declaratory judgment action. Jurisdiction of a declaratory judgment action will not be entertained if there is pending at the time of the declaratory judgment action another action or proceeding to which the same persons are parties, and in which are involved and may be adjudicated the same identical issues that are involved in the declaratory judgment action. Foreman v. Smith, 272 Ala. 624, 133 So.2d 497 (1961). In Auto Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Moore, 235 Ala. 426, 179 So. 368 (1938), plaintiff filed a suit at law against the owner of a truck in which plaintiff was injured and against the owner's insurance carrier. The insurance company filed a bill for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that the contract did not provide coverage and that the carrier was thus not liable. It was held that the insurer had a full and complete opportunity to have its contract interpreted to determine coverage in the action at law, and that because the circuit court at law had first acquired jurisdiction and had ample power to decide all questions material to the insurer's rights, its jurisdiction should not be disturbed. The facts in that case are not materially different from those of the instant case. The issue to be litigated in both the action filed by Mathis and the declaratory judgment action is the same-coverage-and the parties are identical. An action for declaratory judgment may not supersede the determination of an issue already pending in another action filed prior to the declaratory judgment. George Moulton, Inc. v. Langan, 285 Ala. 427, 233 So.2d 74 (1970).
Smith v. North River Ins. Co., 360 So.2d 313 (Ala.1978), is not to the contrary. That case held that an insurer could bring a declaratory judgment action during the pendency of a suit against its insured to determine whether the carrier was required to defend its insured in the action at law. The issue to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action-duty to defend-was different from that involved in the action against the insured-his liability for the plaintiff's injuries. To require the insurer to litigate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
...a duty to defend may be a proper subject of a declaratory judgment action even if a prior suit is pending. Mathis v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 387 So.2d 166, 168 (Ala.1980); Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Envirodyne Engineers, Inc., 122 Ill.App.3d 301, 77 Ill.Dec. 848, 850-51, ......
-
Grimes v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 1150041.
...Mut. Ins. Co., 402 So.2d 949 (Ala. 1981) (involving a defamation claim filed under an employer's policy); and Mathis v. Auto–Owners Ins. Co., 387 So.2d 166 (Ala. 1980) (addressing whether the stepdaughter was covered under the UM coverage in the stepfather's policy). The circuit court's ord......
-
Middlesex Ins. Co. v. Quinn, 14575
...being denied uninsured motorist benefits is not an insured under the liability section of the policy. See, e.g., Mathis v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 387 So.2d 166 (Ala.1980); France v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 380 So.2d 1155 (Fla.App.1980); Girrens v. Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., 238 Kan. 670, ......
-
Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vincel
...has likewise been followed in other states having uninsured motorist statutes nearly identical to ours. See, e.g., Mathis v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (1980) Ala., 387 So.2d 166; France v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., (1980) Fla.App. 380 So.2d 1155; Robertson v. Cumis Ins. Co., (1978) La .App., 355 ......
-
Determining an Insurer's Duty to Defend
...declaratory judgment may not supersede the determination of an issue already pending in another action." Mathis v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 387 So. 2d 166, 167 (Ala. 1980). In this situation, the insurer will probably have to defend until the issue is finally resolved in the claimant's lawsuit......