State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brown
Decision Date | 26 June 2009 |
Docket Number | 1051336. |
Citation | 26 So.3d 1167 |
Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Rachel BROWN, a minor, by and through her parents, Michael Brown and Rosemary Gilbert. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Mark D. Hess and Laura S. Dunning of Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, LLC, Birmingham, for appellant.
Nat Bryan and Thomas M. Powell of Marsh, Rickard & Bryan, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") appeals by permission, pursuant to Rule 5, Ala.R.App. P., from the denial of its summary-judgment motion in an action brought by Rachel Brown, a minor, by and through her parents, Michael Brown and Rosemary Gilbert, to recover uninsured/underinsured-motorist ("UIM") benefits. We reverse and remand.
For purposes of this permissive appeal, we assume the following relevant facts. Rachel is an unmarried and unemancipated minor whose parents are divorced. When Rachel's parents divorced, they were awarded joint custody of Rachel. Rachel was injured in an automobile accident on February 2, 2004. At that time, Rachel lived primarily with her mother and attended a local high school. On February 28, 2006, Rachel sued State Farm seeking UIM benefits, which she alleged she was entitled to under Mr. Brown's automobile insurance policy with State Farm.
Ultimately, State Farm filed a motion for a summary judgment, which the trial court denied. Subsequently, the trial court certified its interlocutory order denying State Farm's summary-judgment motion for permissive review under Rule 5, Ala. R.App. P. Pursuant to Rule 5, State Farm then filed a petition for permission to appeal to this Court, which this Court granted.
In its certification for permissive appeal, the trial court must include a statement of the controlling question of law. In conducting our de novo review of the question presented on a permissive appeal, BE & K, Inc. v. Baker, 875 So.2d 1185, 1189 (Ala.2003). Therefore, the only issue before this Court is the following question of law identified by the trial court in its Rule 5 certification:
"Assuming that at the time of her accident Rachel `live[d] primarily' with her mother and not with [Mr. Brown], whether she nevertheless qualifies as [Mr. Brown]'s `relative' as his `unmarried and unemancipated child away at school' so as to be entitled to UIM benefits under [Mr. Brown]'s State Farm polic[y]?"
The answer to this controlling question of law hinges on the interpretation of the language in the UIM provision in Mr. Brown's automobile insurance policy. Mr. Brown's policy provides UIM benefits to those "insured" under the policy. Under the UIM-coverage section of the policy, "insured" is defined as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
Rachel claims that she is entitled to UIM benefits under the policy because she is Mr. Brown's "relative," a term defined in the policy as follows: (Emphasis added.) The controlling question of law as posed by the trial court assumes that Rachel was not living primarily with Mr. Brown at the time of the accident.
Although this Court has previously addressed the first sentence of State Farm's two-sentence definition of "relative"—"a person related to you or your spouse by blood, marriage or adoption who lives primarily with you"—in an identical policy provision, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Harris, 882 So.2d 849 (Ala.2003), we have not yet addressed the second sentence containing the language at issue in this case.1
B.D.B. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 814 So.2d 877, 879-80 (Ala.Civ.App.2001). However, if a provision in an insurance policy is found to be genuinely ambiguous, "policies of insurance should be construed liberally in respect to persons insured and strictly with respect to the insurer." Crossett v. St. Louis Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 289 Ala. 598, 603, 269 So.2d 869, 873 (1972).
Both State Farm and Rachel argue that State Farm's definition of the term "relative" is not ambiguous. State Farm alleges that the "words used in the policy," when interpreted "as a reasonable person in the insured's position would have understood them," 814 So.2d at 880, require that the two sentences that compose the definition of the term "relative" in the policy be read conjunctively. Thus, State Farm contends, reading the sentences conjunctively, this Court must first determine with whom Rachel "lives primarily" before getting to the question whether she was "away at school." Such a reading requires Rachel to be, while "away at school," away from...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Casualty v. Ala. Gas Corp.
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Progressive N. Ins. Co.
...is not ambiguous and that both lines must apply, State Farm relies primarily on the Alabama case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Brown, 26 So.3d 1167 (Ala.2009), a short per curiam order. As we explain below, Brown does not support State Farm's argument.¶ 96 State Farm's de......
-
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Britt
...the insurer." Crossett v. St. Louis Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 289 Ala. 598, 603, 269 So.2d 869, 873 (1972).’" State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 26 So.3d 1167, 1169–70 (Ala.2009)...."Travelers, 117 So.3d at 699–700 (emphasis omitted).Because the policy does not define "mysterious disapp......
-
Canal Indem. Co. v. Regency Club Owners Ass'n
...Ins., 817 So.2d at 691. A court cannot rewrite a policy to include or exclude coverage that was not intended. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Brown, 26 So.3d 1167, 1169 (Ala.2009) (quoting B.D.B. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 814 So.2d 877, 879–80 (Ala.Civ.App.2001)). Whether a provision......
-
Determining an Insurer's Duty to Defend
...in its meaning, both as written and as applied to a particular claim, is unambiguous. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 26 So. 3d 1167, 1169 (Ala. 2009); 2 David L. Leitner, Reagan W Simpson & John M. Borkman, Law & Practice of Insurance Coverage Litigation § 23:16 n.9 (Westlaw 2......
-
More Uninsured/underinsured Motorist Coverage—an Addition to the Lawyers' Desk Reference
...that the trial court properly entered a summary judgment in favor of the insurer. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Brown, 26 So. 3d 1167 (Ala. 2009), a minor, by and through her divorced parents, filed suit against her father's automobile insurer, seeking to recover uninsured/und......