Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Metzger

Decision Date21 July 1978
Citation360 So.2d 960
PartiesTRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corp. v. Leonard H. METZGER, Jr., as Executor, etc. 77-299.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Alton R. Brown, Jr. and Robert M. Montiel, Mobile, for appellant.

Irvin J. Langford of Howell, Johnston, Langford, Finkbohner & Lawler, Mobile, for appellee.

FAULKNER, Justice.

This appeal questions Tit. 36, § 74(62a) Code of Ala. 1940, Recompiled 1958, as to whether the umbrella policy in this case came within its provisions. The trial court found that it did. We find that it did not, and reverse and render.

On August 4, 1974, Gwen Metzger was killed when the automobile she was driving was struck by an uninsured motorist who was intoxicated and fleeing the police. At the time her husband, Leonard Metzger, had in effect two insurance policies relevant to this case. The first was an "Automobile Policy" issued by Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. on the automobile Gwen Metzger was driving when the accident occurred. This policy had limits of $300,000 and specifically included uninsured motorist coverage. The second, issued by Trinity Universal Insurance Co. with a limit of $1,000,000, was termed a "Personal Excess Umbrella Policy." This umbrella policy covered "ultimate net loss in excess of the underlying limit which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of personal injury or property damage." The "underlying limit" was determined by the limits on two "underlying policies," specifically, the automobile policy issued by Aetna and a homeowner's policy issued by Reliance Insurance Co. with limits of $100,000. Metzger collected $10,000 under the uninsured motorist provisions of his automobile policy with Aetna and then made demand on Trinity Universal to pay uninsured motorist coverage under their umbrella policy. Trinity Universal denied liability prompting Metzger to bring this suit. The case was tried by a judge without a jury on the single question of coverage. The trial court rendered judgment for Metzger and Trinity Universal appealed.

Our uninsured motorist statute reads in pertinent 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 . . . unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto, . . . under provisions approved by the commissioner of insurance, for the protection of persons insured thereunder . . . from owners or operators of uninsured vehicles . . . provided, that the named insured shall have the right to reject such coverage; . . . " Tit. 36, § 74(62a), Code of Ala. 1940, Recompiled 1958.

We must determine whether the umbrella policy issued by Trinity Universal is an "automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy" as contemplated by this statute. First it is clear that it is not a "motor vehicle liability policy" because this term is defined in Tit. 36, § 74(62) as a policy insuring specific automobiles and individuals subject to limits of $5,000/$10,000/$1,000. (Tit. 36, § 74(62)(b)(1) and (2). Other statutory requirements are set out in subsections (a) and (c)-(k).) Trinity Universal's umbrella policy refers to an underlying policy with Aetna rather than any specific automobile, and sets limits far above the statutory requirements.

Is this umbrella policy, nevertheless, an "automobile liability policy" and therefore subject to the statute? This court has in the past drawn a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Popham v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1992
    ...statutes. See, e.g., O'Hanlon v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, 639 F.2d 1019 (3rd Cir.1981); Trinity Universal Insurance Company v. Metzger, 360 So.2d 960 (Ala.1978). Determining the correctness of the trial court's findings presents questions of statutory construction. We recently......
  • Mass v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1992
    ...[the Masses] from the infrequent occurrence of catastrophic judgments against [them]." (Emphasis added.) Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Metzger, 360 So.2d 960, 962 (Ala.1978). The personal excess policy issued to the Masses by USF & G did not expressly refer to uninsured motorist coverage. I......
  • Martusus v. Tartamosa
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • July 9, 1997
    ...motorist statute, even though one of the primary policies may itself insure automobiles. [Ibid. (citing Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Metzger, 360 So.2d 960, 962 (Ala.1978)).] "[A]ny other interpretation would distort the actual purpose of the umbrella policy." Id. at 553, 659 A.2d 1371 (qu......
  • Kim v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 30, 2021
    ...automobile or motor vehicle liability policy ***.’ " Id. at 395, 63 Ill.Dec. 42, 437 N.E.2d 691 (quoting Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Metzger , 360 So.2d 960, 962 (Ala. 1978) ).See also Mei Pang v. Farmers Insurance Group , 2014 IL App (1st) 123204, ¶ 11, 381 Ill.Dec. 216, 10 N.E.3d 3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT