State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Harris
| Decision Date | 26 November 2003 |
| Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Hugh HARRIS, III. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
882 So.2d 849
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANYv.
Hugh HARRIS, III
1020609.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
November 26, 2003.
Mark R. Ulmer of Ulmer, Hillman & Ballard, P.C., Mobile, for appellant.
George R. Irvine III, Shawn T. Alves, and R. Scott Lewis of Stone, Granade & Crosby, P.C., Bay Minette, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") appeals from the denial of its postjudgment motion styled as a "Motion for Reduction in Judgment Amount." The specific question presented in State Farm's motion was whether Hugh ("Bo") Harris III, a minor, was entitled to "stack" the uninsured-motorist-coverage benefits available under five automobile insurance policies issued to Bo's father, Hugh Harris, Jr., by State Farm. State Farm argued in the motion that Bo Harris did not fall within the definition of "relative" contained in the State Farm policies and, thus, that Bo Harris was not an
The trial court held that Bo Harris was entitled to stack those coverages, and it refused to reduce, as State Farm requested, the judgment entered on the jury's verdict. We reverse and remand.
Facts
On September 24, 1999, Bo Harris was driving a Chevrolet S-10 truck owned by his father.1 Bo's father had given Bo permission to operate the truck. On that same date, Fate Foley III was operating an automobile owned by his wife, Lana Foley. Foley failed to stop at a stop sign, and the automobile he was driving collided with the truck being driven by Bo Harris.
It is undisputed that Foley's negligence and/or wantonness caused the accident, and that, as a result of the accident, Bo Harris suffered serious injuries.2 It is also undisputed that Fate Foley and Lana Foley were uninsured motorists, as that term is defined by Alabama law.
At the time of the accident, State Farm insured Hugh Harris's Chevrolet S-10 truck under policy number D26 9897-F09-01. That policy was in effect on the date of the accident.3 In separate policies, State Farm also insured four other vehicles owned by Hugh Harris; those policies were also in effect on the date of the accident.
Each of the insurance policies issued by State Farm to Hugh Harris contained the following pertinent provisions relating to uninsured-motorist coverage:
"We will pay damages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle. The bodily injury must be caused by an accident arising out of the operation, maintenance or use of an uninsured motor vehicle.
"....
"Who Is an Insured
"Insured — means the person or persons covered by uninsured motor vehicle coverage.
"This is:
"1. The first person named in the declarations;
"2. his or her spouse;
"3. their relatives;
"4. any other person while occupying:
"a. your car, a temporary substitute car, a newly acquired car or a trailer attached to such car. Such vehicle has to be used within the scope of the consent of you or your spouse; or
"b. a car not owned by you, your spouse or any relative, or a trailer attached to such a car. It has to be driven by the first person named in the declarations or that person's spouse and within the owner's consent.
"Such other person occupying a vehicle used to carry persons for a charge is not an insured.
882 So.2d 851"5. any person entitled to recover damages because of bodily injury to an insured under 1 through 4 above."
(Emphasis omitted.) In the policies issued to Hugh Harris, "relative" was originally defined to mean "a person related to you or your spouse by blood, marriage or adoption who lives with you. It includes your unmarried and unemancipated child away at school." (Emphasis added; boldface type omitted.) In a later endorsement, State Farm amended the definition of "relative" to read: "a person related to you or your spouse by blood, marriage or adoption who lives primarily with you. It includes your unmarried and unemancipated child away at school." (Emphasis added; boldface type omitted.)
Donna Robinson, as mother and next friend of Bo Harris, sued Fate Foley and Lana Foley.4 Robinson alleged that Fate Foley had negligently or wantonly operated the vehicle he was driving. Robinson also alleged that Lana Foley had negligently or wantonly entrusted her vehicle to Fate Foley. Robinson sought to recover compensation for Bo Harris's medical expenses, his permanent injuries, and his pain and suffering. She also sought punitive damages.
State Farm filed a motion to intervene in the case. The trial court granted the motion, and State Farm answered Robinson's complaint. State Farm deposited with the clerk of the circuit court the sum of $25,000, which State Farm alleged was the maximum Bo Harris was entitled to recover under the uninsured-motorist coverage available under Hugh Harris's policy with State Farm insuring the Chevrolet S-10 truck. This amount represented the limits of the uninsured-motorist coverage provided under State Farm automobile policy D26 9897-F09-01, the policy issued on the Chevrolet S-10 pick-up truck being operated by Bo Harris at the time of the accident.
State Farm subsequently sought a partial summary judgment, relying on Bo Harris's deposition testimony in which he stated that he lived primarily with his mother. State Farm argued that because Bo Harris did not live primarily with his father, he did not meet the definition of "relative" contained in the insurance policies issued to Hugh Harris. State Farm argued that because Bo Harris did not fall within any definition of "insured,"5 he was not entitled to stack the uninsured-motorist coverage available under the insurance policies issued by State Farm on Hugh Harris's four other vehicles. Robinson opposed this motion and filed her own motion for a partial summary judgment, arguing, on various grounds, that Bo Harris was entitled to stack the coverage available under those policies.
The trial court subsequently denied State Farm's motion for a partial summary judgment and granted Robinson's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Bo Harris was entitled to stack the uninsured-motorist coverage available under his father's five State Farm insurance policies.6
On November 6, 2000, Robinson's claims alleging negligence and wantonness as to
On November 15, 2002, State Farm filed its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Am. Nat'l Prop., & Cas. Co. v. Gulf Coast Aerial, LLC
...meaning of "charge" per the Policy. To decide that issue, the Court must construe the meaning of that term. See State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harris, 882 So.2d 849, 852 (Ala. 2003) (interpreting the meaning of "relative" per the insurance policy). "Interpretation of an insurance contract pres......
-
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Goldthwaite
...preempted by the ICCTA.Standard of Review“This Court reviews de novo a trial court's conclusions of law. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Harris,882 So.2d 849, 852 (Ala.2003).“ ‘The appropriate standard of review of a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss is whether “when the all......
-
BT SECURITIES CORP. v. WR HUFF ASSET MANAGEMENT CO., LLC
...its motion to dismiss. Standard of Review This Court reviews de novo a trial court's conclusions of law. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Harris, 882 So.2d 849, 852 (Ala.2003). "The appropriate standard of review of a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss is whether `when the all......
-
State Farm Fire And Cas. Co. v. Lange
...of coverage"). The Court finds that "primary residence" is unambiguous as a matter of law. See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Harris, 882 So.2d 849, 853-54 (Ala. 2003); Wallace v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4216132, at *3 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2007); Bauer v. USAA Cas. In......
-
More Uninsured/underinsured Motorist Coverage—an Addition to the Lawyers' Desk Reference
...turn on the policy language itself. For an example, please see Justice Houston's dissent in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., v. Harris, 882 So. 2d 849, 849 (Ala. 2003).6. What does this mean for a divorced father whose high school-aged child lives with his/her mother and the father is ordere......