Sweatt v. Great American Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 December 1990 |
| Citation | 574 So.2d 732 |
| Parties | Thomas Albert SWEATT and Pauline Sweatt v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., et al. 89-901. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Patrick M. Sigler and Stephen C. Moore, Mobile, for appellants.
Michael Gillion and A. Carson Irvine, Mobile, for appellee Great American Ins. Co.
Judson W. Wells of Barker & Janecky, Mobile, for appellee Firemen's Fund Ins. Co.
Walter M. Cook, Jr., and Thomas M. Benton, Jr. of Lyons, Pipes & Cook, Mobile, for appellee Federal Ins. Co.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial judge correctly held that the provisions of three policies of excess insurance held by the injured party's employer provided no uninsured motorist benefits to the injured party, who was injured when he was involved in an automobile accident with a phantom vehicle. The trial judge entered a summary judgment for each of the three excess carriers.
We have examined the provisions of each policy, and after applying what we consider to be the appropriate principles of law, we affirm.
The facts are not seriously disputed. Thomas Albert Sweatt, while driving a truck for his employer, Smith's Bakery, Inc. ("the Bakery"), was severely injured when he was involved in an accident with a phantom vehicle. Sweatt and his wife filed an uninsured motorist action against the Bakery's automotive insurance carrier, Employers Casualty Company, and against his personal automotive insurance carrier, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. Employers Casualty paid into court the amount of its policy, $60,000, and Sweatt subsequently settled with Aetna. Sweatt later amended his complaint to add as parties the Bakery's three excess insurance carriers. Great American Insurance Company's policy with the Bakery provided excess coverage with a limit of $5,000,000; Federal Insurance Company's policy with the Bakery provided a limit of $10,000,000, and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company's policy with the Bakery provided a limit of $20,000,000.
The three excess carriers moved for summary judgment and argued that their policies did not provide uninsured motorist benefits to the Sweatts. They contended that their individual policies covered only damages the employer "shall become legally obligated to pay," and that, under the facts of this case, the employer was obligated to pay only worker's compensation benefits, and that those benefits had been paid. The trial court agreed with the carriers' argument and granted their motions for summary judgment and made their judgments final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala.R.Civ.P.
The Great American policy provides the following coverage:
"The company will pay on behalf of the insured the ultimate net loss in excess of the underlying limit or retained limit which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay...." (Emphasis added.)
The Federal Insurance policy provides as follows:
"Subject to the terms of this policy; the Company agrees to pay on behalf of the insured loss resulting from an occurrence insured by all policies scheduled in Item 5 of the Declaration."
The Federal Insurance policy then defines "loss" as follows:
"[A]ll sums actually paid or sums which the insured is legally obligated to pay in the settlement or satisfaction of a claim to which this insurance applies after making proper deductions for all recoveries and salvage." (Emphasis added.)
The Fireman's Fund policy provides the following coverage:
"Subject to the other provisions of this policy, We will indemnify the Insured for the Insured's Ultimate Net Loss if such loss results from an occurrence insured by all of the policies designated in the Declarations as Underlying Insurance."
The Fireman's Fund policy then defines ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Browder v. General Motors Corp.
...policy as if written into the contract, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 764 F.2d 773 (11th Cir.1985); Sweatt v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 574 So.2d 732 (Ala.1990); Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Jones, 286 Ala. 606, 243 So.2d 736 (1970), such coverage is not compulsory and may be rejected b......
-
Lambert v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Co. of America v. Jones, 286 Ala. 606, 243 So.2d 736 (1970). Other cases have raised different issues. See, e.g., Sweatt v. Great American Ins. Co., 574 So.2d 732 (Ala.1990) (the provisions of the uninsured motorist statute do not apply to excess insurance policies); Best v. Auto-Owners Ins......
-
Sweatt v. Employers Cas. Co.
...this Court relating to their rights to recover uninsured motorist benefits from three excess insurance carriers. See Sweatt v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 574 So.2d 732 (Ala.1990). The appellants, Thomas Albert Sweatt and Pauline Sweatt, filed an uninsured motorist claim against Mr. Sweatt's employ......