State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Baldwin
| Decision Date | 01 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-7269,84-7269 |
| Citation | 764 F.2d 773 |
| Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. David A. BALDWIN and Denise Baldwin, Defendants-Appellees. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Joel W. Ramsey, Ramsey & Baxley, Dothan, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert H. Brogden, Ozark, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
Before RONEY, FAY and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
APPENDIX A
(October 5, 1984)
Before RONEY, FAY and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
IT IS ORDERED that further proceedings in this Court in the above-styled case be STAYED pending determination of the question of law certified to the Supreme Court of Alabama pursuant to Rule 18 of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The issue is whether 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 Sec. 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.
The facts are not in dispute, having been stipulated by the parties. On February 24, 1982, while engaged in the performance of his duties as Sergeant in the United States Army at Fort Rucker, Alabama, Defendant David A. Baldwin was seriously injured when a government vehicle operated by David L. White, a civilian employee of the United States government, collided with Baldwin's motorcycle. All parties to this litigation concede that the accident was caused by White's negligence and acknowledge that, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1346, as interpreted in Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950), the defendants, Mr. Baldwin and his wife, Denise Baldwin, cannot recover from either the United States of America or its employee-agent, Mr. White.
The Baldwins have three vehicles insured with the plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm").
Each vehicle has uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $10,000. The Baldwins have demanded of State Farm uninsured motorist coverage totalling $30,000.
The contract clause concerning uninsured motorist coverage in the Baldwins' insurance policy with State Farm provides: This clause is apparently patterned after language in the Alabama Uninsured Motorist Act. Section 32-7-23 of this act requires insurers to offer their customers a certain amount of coverage for damages caused by the actions of uninsured vehicle owners and operators. The section states in relevant part:
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....
Ala.Code Sec. 32-7-23 (1975) (emphasis added).
State Farm brought suit in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that the Baldwins are not legally entitled under the statute to recover damages since governmental immunity prevented them from maintaining an action against the United States or Mr. White. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama concluded that, although principles of governmental immunity protected the United States and Mr. White from suit, these principles did not preclude the court from considering Mr. White "legally liable" in construing the contract between State Farm and the Baldwins. The district court held that the Baldwins are "legally entitled to recover" from State Farm under the uninsured motorist provision of their insurance policy. State Farm appeals.
The question of law involved in this appeal appears to be one that this Court may review independently. See Underwood v. Hunter, 730 F.2d 614, 617 n. 6 (11th Cir.1984). However, Alabama law controls, and a review of the decisions of the Alabama courts reveals that no clear, controlling precedent exists. For this reason, further proceedings in this Court are stayed pending determination of the question of law certified to the Alabama Supreme Court.
APPENDIX B
THE STATE OF ALABAMA ------- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 1984-85
State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, a corporation
v.
David A. Baldwin and Denise Baldwin
CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Filed May 10, 1985
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. * * * '
State Farm appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which found, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Continental Western Ins. Co.
...insured. Radlein v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 117 Wis.2d 605, 345 N.W.2d 874, 884 (1984); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 764 F.2d 773, 778 (11th Cir.1985). The South Dakota uninsured motorist statute is substantially identical in form and intent to the model statute e......
-
Medders v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.
...tortfeasor is immune from liability there is no coverage. Finally, the Medders assign much weight to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Baldwin, 764 F.2d 773 (11th Cir.1985). There, a sergeant in the United States Army was injured when his motorcycle collided with a governmen......
-
Tokley v. State Farm Ins. Companies
...at 718; Radlein v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 117 Wis.2d 605, 345 N.W.2d 874, 884 (1984); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 764 F.2d 773, 778 (11th Cir.1985). To accomplish the purposes of uninsured motorist coverage, policy provisions are construed liberally in favor of ......
-
Kough v. New Jersey Auto. Full Ins. Underwriting Ass'n
...decision in Baldwin was in response to a request for an advisory opinion from a federal appeals court. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 764 F.2d 773 (11 Cir.1985).5 Amendments by L. 1988, c. 119, § 11, effective January 1, 1989, did not affect these ...