State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Baldwin
Citation | 470 So.2d 1230,55 A.L.R.4th 797 |
Parties | STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation v. David A. BALDWIN and Denise Baldwin. 84-41-CER. |
Decision Date | 10 May 1985 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Joel W. Ramsey of Ramsey & Baxley, Dothan, for appellant.
Robert H. Brogden of Brogden & Quattlebaum, Ozark, for appellee.
This case involves a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The facts, as stipulated to by the parties and adopted by the Eleventh Circuit, are as follows:
'No automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this State with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto ... for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom; provided, that the named insured shall have the right to reject such coverage. * * *'
Code 1975, § 32-7-23 [ ].
State Farm appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which found, as follows:
Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit stayed further proceedings in the appeal and certified the following question for determination by this Court:
"[W]hether an insured, who is precluded because of governmental immunity from suing the owner or negligent operator of an uninsured motor vehicle, is nevertheless 'legally entitled to recover damages' under the Alabama Uninsured Motorist Act, Ala.Code, § 32-7-23 (1975), thus making operative the insurer's obligation to compensate the insured according to the insurance policy's uninsured motorist coverage, coverage that the State of Alabama, by statute, requires the insurer to offer."
This appears to be a case of first impression not only in Alabama but in the entire country. Both parties have cited authority from this and other jurisdictions generally dealing with the interpretation of uninsured motorist provisions similar to the one before us, but all of those cases are distinguishable, factually or otherwise, from the present case. Nevertheless, we find two Alabama cases cited by the Baldwins, Higgins v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 291 Ala. 462, 282 So.2d 301 (1973), and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Griffin, 51 Ala.App. 426, 286 So.2d 302 (1973), which apparently was relied upon by the United States District Court, to be most helpful in our decision.
In Higgins, supra, a minor plaintiff was injured in a one-vehicle accident while being transported as a student/passenger in an uninsured Jefferson County school bus. She sought to recover damages for her injuries under the uninsured motorist provision of her father's automobile liability policy. That provision contained an exclusion expressly denying coverage if the uninsured vehicle causing the claimant's injuries was "an automobile which [was] owned by the United States of America, Canada, a state, a political subdivision of any such government or any agency of any of the foregoing." In determining that this exclusion did not prevent plaintiff's recovery against her father's insurer this Court stated:
'Where a statute [an Act] requiring uninsured motorist coverage is broad and comprehensive in scope, it establishes as a matter of public policy that every bodily injury motor vehicle policy should provide uninsured motorist coverage; the code [Act] becomes in effect a part of every policy of insurance to which it is applicable, as if it were written out in full in the policy itself. * * *.' Hendricks v. Meritplan Insurance Co., 205 Cal.App.2d 133, 22 Cal.Rptr. 682.
"Couch on Insurance, Second Edition, Vol. 12, § 45.625, p. 571 states:
'An uninsured motorist statute requiring uninsured motorist coverage enters into the contract of insurance as an implied term and forms a part thereof.' Citing among other cases Prosk v. Allstate Insurance Co., 82 Ill.App.2d 457, 226 N.E.2d 498, 25 A.L.R.3d 1294; Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Powell, (Fla.App.) 206 So.2d 244; Stevens v. American Service Mutual Insurance Co., (Dist.Col.App.) 234 A.2d 305; Allison v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co., (Fla.App.) 222 So.2d 254; Rose v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 209 Va. 755, 167 S.E.2d 339; Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Williams, 119 Ga.App. 414, 167 S.E.2d 174; Progressive Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brown, (Fla.App.) 229 So.2d 645, quashed on other grounds (Fla.) 249 So.2d 429; Indiana Insurance Co. v. Noble, Ind.App. , 265 N.E.2d 419.
"In Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Jones, 286 Ala. 606,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matarese v. N.H. Mun. Ass'n Prop.-Liab. Ins. Trust, Inc.
...recovery in this case.This result is consistent with numerous cases from other jurisdictions. See, e.g. , State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Baldwin , 470 So.2d 1230 (Ala.1985) (although uninsured tortfeasor could have relied upon statutory immunity as a defense, given legislative policy behind u......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mason
...... See State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 470 So.2d 1230, 1234 (Ala.1985) (holding that insureds were "legally entitled to recover damages" within the meaning of § 32-7-23 "regardless of the fact that [the operator] is otherwise prohibited from such recovery"). Baldwin, in turn, was followed in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance ......
-
West American v. Popa
...an insured from recovering his damages from his uninsured or underinsured motorist carrier. See, e.g., State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 470 So.2d 1230, 1234 (Ala.1985) (stating that "in keeping with the intent of the uninsured motorist statute" the claimant was legally entitled to reco......
-
Medders v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.
...of remedies provision in the Workers' Compensation statute. The Alabama Supreme Court, in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Baldwin, 470 So.2d 1230, 55 A.L.R.4th 797 (Ala.1985), a case of first impression, refused to allow the government tort immunity granted by Feres v. United ......