Case Title: Travelers Ins. Co., Inc. v. Jones

Citation: 529 So. 2d 234

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1988-06-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
529 So. 2d 234 (1988)
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
v.
Waltina JONES and Doris McNish.
86-672.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 24, 1988.
Douglas L. Brown and D. Brent Baker of Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes & Reeves, Mobile, for appellant.
James F. Barter, Jr. of Diamond, Leon & Barter, Mobile, for appellees.
MADDOX, Justice.
This case involves the "stacking" of uninsured motorist coverage provided in an insurance policy covering two automobiles.
The plaintiffs, Waltina Jones and Doris McNish, were passengers in an automobile driven by Randolph Bellamy. They were involved in a collision with an uninsured motorist, and both were injured. Bellamy had an insurance policy with the defendant, Travelers Insurance Company, Inc., which covered two different automobiles that Bellamy owned.[1] In this action, the plaintiffs *235 seek to stack the uninsured motorist coverages provided under the policy. Neither of the plaintiffs is a named insured in the policy; neither is married to or otherwise related to Bellamy; and neither has ever paid any premiums on the policy.
Travelers filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the issue of stacking coverages. The plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the issue of liability based upon the negligence of the other driver involved in the accident and that driver's lack of liability insurance. The trial judge granted plaintiffs' partial summary judgment motion as to liability, and denied Travelers' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of stacking. Travelers was given permission to file this interlocutory appeal (see Rule 5, Ala.R. App.P.), contending that a distinction exists in classes of insureds when it comes to stacking uninsured motorist coverages and that this Court has consistently recognized that distinction since Lambert v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 331 So. 2d 260 (Ala. 1976).
The facts of the case are not disputed. The only issue presented for review is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to stack the uninsured motorist coverages under the policy owned by Bellamy. The trial judge held that they were so entitled, citing Ala. Code 1975, § 32-7-23(c):
The trial judge held that the plaintiffs were "injured persons" within the meaning of the statute and were therefore entitled to stack coverage.
Travelers argues that § 32-7-23(c) was not intended to change the law with regard to classes of insureds, and was intended only to limit the number of coverages that could be "stacked."
This Court has recognized that there are distinctions between two classes of insureds in stacking situations. See, White v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Insurance Co., 520 So. 2d 140 (Ala.1987); Holloway v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 376 So. 2d 690 (Ala.1979); and Billups v. Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Co., 352 So. 2d 1097 (Ala.1977).
In the recent case of White v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Insurance Co., supra, this Court stated its latest explanation of these two classes of insureds:
In the White case, Mr. White and his wife were injured while riding in a truck owned by his employer that Mr. White drove in the line and scope of his employer's business. We authorized Mr. White to stack, but we specifically disallowed stacking by his wife, stating:
White, supra, 520 So. 2d  at 141.
The plaintiffs in this case argue, and the trial judge agreed, that under the plain language of the statute, which was not applicable in White, they are entitled to stack coverages. In short, they argue that by adopting § 32-7-23(c), the legislature intended to change the rule so as to eliminate the distinctions between classes of insureds in stacking situations and to provide that any injured person who is covered under one policy is entitled to stack coverages. We agree that the plaintiffs, in this case, can stack because they are within the definition of an "insured" under the terms of the uninsured motorist coverage portion of the policy, and in this case there is an additional "coverage" for another automobile "within such contract."
We have carefully reviewed the legislative history of Act No. 84-301, and specifically Section 4 of that Act, which contains subsection (c). Section 4 reads as follows:
"`§ 32-7-23. (a) 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, in limits for bodily injury or death set forth in subsection (c) of section 32-7-6, under provisions approved by the commissioner of insurance 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 in writing, such coverage need not be provided in or supplemental to a renewal policy where the named insured had rejected the coverage in connection with the policy previously *237 issued to him by the same insurer [sic].
"`(b) The term `uninsured motor vehicle' shall include, but is not limited to, motor vehicles with respect to which: (1) neither the owner nor the operator carries bodily injury liability insurance; (2) any applicable policy liability limits for bodily injury are below the minimum required under section 32-7-6; (3) the insurer becomes insolvent after the policy is issued so there is no insurance applicable to, or at the time of, the accident; (4) the sum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability bonds and insurance policies available to an injured person after an accident is less than the damages which the injured person is legally entitled to recover.
"`(c) The recovery by an injured person under the uninsured provisions of any one contract of automobile insurance shall be limited to the primary coverage plus such additional coverage as may be provided for additional vehicles, but not to exceed two additional coverages within such contract.'"
House Bill 81 was introduced by Rep. Marietta and others, and the title to that bill read as follows:
1984 Journal of the House, p. 20.
Representative Coleman offered the following substitute to H.B. 81 as amended:
1984 Journal of the House, p. 982.
The substitute bill passed the House by a vote of 52 to 47. 1984 Journal of the House, p. 986.
In the Senate, H.B. 81, as passed by the House, was reported to the floor of the Senate with a committee substitute, which was substantially like the bill initially offered by Rep. Marietta, and the Senate committee substitute did not include subsection (c), which is the subject of this opinion. Senator Langford offered a substitute bill for the Senate committee substitute. The title to Senator Langford's substitute bill was, in words and figures, the same as that of the original bill.
The committee substitute, as amended by the Teague substitute, as amended by the Langford substitute, for H.B. 81, was adopted by the Senate by a vote of 19-8. 1984 Journal of the Senate, p. 1154. The House concurred in the senate amendment, and adopted H.B. 81 by a vote of 49-48. 1984 Journal of the House, p. 2037.
We do not have any of the debates in the House or the Senate to aid us in attempting to ascertain, in view of the legislative history of H.B. 81, whether the legislature, in adopting (c): 1) intended to effect a compromise to authorize Class II insureds to "stack" on the same basis as Class I insureds and limit the number of coverages that either class could stack; 2) intended only to limit stacking by Class I insureds, *238 without extending the stacking privilege to Class II insureds; or 3) intended to limit the number of coverages which could be stacked by either a Class I or & Class II insured when more than one vehicle was included for coverage in a single policy.
In ascertaining legislative intent, however, we are not unguided. In the seminal case involving the right of Class II insureds to "stack," this Court discussed the statutory underpinnings of the right to "stack," in general, and spelled out the distinctions between the two classes of insureds. Lambert v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 331 So. 2d 260 (Ala.1976). In Lambert, this Court discussed the entire history of "stacking" insurance coverages and specially delineated between insureds of the first class and insureds of the second class. We quote extensively from that opinion to show the state of the law at the time the legislature was considering H.B. 81:
"`[T]he policy ... defines two separate classes of persons as being "insured" under it: First, the named insured (and any relative); and second, any other person while occupying an insured automobile. To be insured, the latter must actually be occupants of an insured vehicle. Their coverage is tied to and limited to actual occupancy of a particular automobile. This is not true of the named insured. His coverage... is not tied to or limited by occupancy of an automobile....
"`Thus we see that the policy provides the named insured with two kinds of coverage: While he is in his insured automobile, and wherever else he may happen to be when he suffers bodily injury due to an uninsured motorist. This latter constitutes a broad reservoir of coverage.'
"`The named insured in a policy receives coverage, and a contract benefit, for which he has paid a consideration. He seeks indemnity based on the payment of that premium and where he has paid separate premiums he is entitled to the additional coverages. However, this argument and reasoning does not apply to a permissive user of a vehicle....'
"Cunningham v. Ins. Co. of North America, 213 Va. 72, 77, 189 S.E.2d 832, 836 (1972). The well reasoned opinion in Cunningham, authored by Justice Harrison, has been expressly adopted by several other courts which have considered this same issue. E.g. Long v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 396 F. Supp. 966, 969-70 (N.D.Ala.1975) (Referring to the above-quoted excerpt from Cunningham, Judge Lynne wrote, `This reasoning is sound.' 396 F.Supp. at 970); Moomaw v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 379 F. Supp. 697, 703 (S.D.W.Va.1974).
331 So. 2d  at 262-65
The question then becomes: What did the legislature intend when it amended § 32-7-23 by adopting subsection (c), which states that "[t]he recovery by an injured person under the uninsured provisions of any one contract of automobile insurance shall be limited to the primary coverage plus such additional coverage as may be provided for additional vehicles, but not to exceed two additional coverages within such contract"?
The plain meaning of the amendment extends "stacking" of uninsured motorist coverage to all persons who are insureds, whether named insureds or not, and entitles them to recover "the primary coverage plus such additional coverage as may be provided for additional vehicles, but not to exceed two additional coverages with such contract." The plaintiffs were obviously "persons injured," and because the policy provided them primary coverage and contained an additional coverage for an additional vehicle "within such contract," then they are entitled to stack that coverage under the plain meaning of the statute.
Although the plaintiffs are not named insureds, they are "insureds" under the policy language itself, by reason of the fact that they were passengers in one of the *241 vehicles covered under the policy. Because the particular policy in this case contained "an additional coverage ... within such contract," they can stack that coverage. Because of this fact, the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.[2]
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and SHORES, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.
JONES, ALMON, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur in the result.
*242 
*243 JONES, Justice (concurring in the result).
I concur in the result to affirm the trial court's judgment allowing the insured passengers to stack coverage pursuant to § 32-7-23(c), Code 1975. I do not agree with the rationale of the opinion to the effect that stacking is permitted simply because both of the named insured's vehicles were included within the same policy of insurance. Whatever the legislature may have intended by the phrase "any one contract of automobile insurance," it is inconceivable to me that it intended to grant the insurer the unilateral authority to deny a passenger the right to stack coverage by issuing two separate policies of insurance as opposed to a single policy covering two vehicles.[1] I construe the literal language of the 1985 amendment ("The recovery by an injured person under ... any one contract") to allow the passengers in this case to recover the primary coverage plus the additional coverage on the second vehicle. Once the amendment (subsection (c)) becomes a part of the uninsured motorist provisions of every automobile insurance policy, these plaintiffs, as injured persons, are entitled to the primary coverage plus the one additional coverage provided by the policy.
[1]  The actual policy of insurance was not made a part of the original record in this case, and the briefs of the parties indicated that there were two separate policies of insurance involved. In Travelers's brief, the following statement of fact is made:

"The Plaintiffs, Waltina Jones and Doris McNish, filed uninsured motorist claims, in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, against The Travelers Insurance Company, Inc. (hereinafter The Travelers) as a result of an automobile accident that occurred in Mobile County on September 11, 1985. At the time of the accident, the Plaintiffs were occupants of a vehicle owned and being driven by Randolph Bellamy and insured by The Travelers under a policy of automobile insurance. The driver of the only other vehicle involved in the accident was uninsured.
"At the time of the accident, Randolph Bellamy owned a second automobile which was also insured by The Travelers. Both automobile policies owned by Randolph Bellamy contained provisions for protection against uninsured motorists. In their complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to stack the uninsured motorist coverage available under both of these policies of insurance." (Emphasis added).
The plaintiffs, in their brief, framed the legal issue, as follows:
"THE TRIAL JUDGE CORRECTLY RULED THAT SECTION 32-7-23(c) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITY ACT ENTITLES THE PLAINTIFFS TO STACK UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE UNDER TWO POLICIES OF INSURANCE COVERING THE VEHICLES OF THE DEFENDANT'S INSURED AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT."
After submission, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 10(f), Ala.R.App.P., this Court requested that the record be supplemented to include the "two" policies. On June 1, 1988, the record was supplemented. The trial judge's order in that supplemental record refers to "the two insurance policies," but only one policy is appended and it shows coverages for two vehicles. We attach as an appendix to this opinion a copy of that page of the policy listing the automobiles covered by it.
[2]  We express no opinion on whether a passenger in a car that is covered by one policy can stack another coverage included in a separate policy. Although the briefs of both parties indicated that this case involved that very question, we now have the policy before us, having obtained it by utilizing Rule 10(f), Ala.R.App.P., to supplement the record. Even though there continues to be reference to "the two policies of insurance," in the supplemental record, the policy sent to us indicates that there is but one policy and that it covers two vehicles.
[1]  I note that, although the parties incorrectly refer to two policies of insurance, as opposed to a single policy covering two vehicles, the insurer does not contend (and rightly so) that the result to be reached in a case involving two policies is at odds with the terms of the statute referencing "any one contract." Clearly, as all parties concede, the statute does not contemplate a material distinction between a single policy covering two or more vehicles owned by the same named insured and separate policies covering each of several vehicles. See Great Central Insurance Co. v. Edge, 292 Ala. 613, 298 So. 2d 607 (1974).