Case Title: Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Thomas

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1101332

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2012-08-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
R e l : 
08/24/2012 
Notice: T h i s 
o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e 
r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama 
A p p e l l a t e 
C o u r t s , 
300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 
((334) 
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f any t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made 
b e f o r e t h e 
o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
SPECIAL TERM, 2012 
1101332 
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company 
v. 
Scott Thomas, Kenneth Gene Gooden, J r . , 
and L o r i Touart 
Thomas 
C e r t i f i e d Questions from the 
United States D i s t r i c t Court 
f o r the Northern D i s t r i c t of 
Alabama, Eastern D i v i s i o n 
(No. 1:10-1134-RBP) 
MAIN, J u s t i c e . 
The 
U n i t e d 
S t a t e s 
D i s t r i c t 
C o u r t 
f o r t h e 
N o r t h e r n 
D i s t r i c t o f 
Alabama, E a s t e r n D i v i s i o n ("the d i s t r i c t c o u r t " ) , 
a c t i n g p u r s u a n t t o 
R u l e 18, A l a . 
R. App. 
P., 
has c e r t i f i e d two 
1101332 
q u e s t i o n s 
o f f i r s t 
i m p r e s s i o n 
t o t h i s 
C o u r t . 
T h i s 
C o u r t 
a c c e p t e d and now answers those 
q u e s t i o n s . 
I. 
C e r t i f i e d Q u e s t i o n s 
The two q u e s t i o n s 
c e r t i f i e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a r e 
as 
f o l l o w s : 
"Whether a coverage 
e x c l u s i o n 
c l a u s e 
i n an 
a u t o m o b i l e 
l i a b i l i t y 
[ i n s u r a n c e 
p o l i c y ] 
w h i c h 
p r o v i d e s : ' T h i s coverage does n o t a p p l y t o : 
use o f 
any motor v e h i c l e t o c a r r y p e r s o n s o r p r o p e r t y f o r 
a f e e ' i s e n f o r c e a b l e as t o an i n s u r e d who d e l i v e r s 
newspapers f o r 
an employer and i s 
compensated by 
t h e 
employer 
based 
on 
t h e 
number 
o f 
newspapers 
d e l i v e r e d , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e l o c a t i o n o f customers. 
A s e c o n d a r y i s s u e i s 
whether s a i d e x c l u s i o n a p p l i e s 
when t h e s u b j e c t 
a c c i d e n t 
t a k e s 
p l a c e 
a f t e r t h e 
d e l i v e r y o f t h e l a s t p a p e r , b u t w h i l e t h e i n s u r e d i s 
d r i v i n g back t o h i s p o i n t o f o r i g i n o r some 
o t h e r 
l o c a t i o n .
1 
"
1The 
i n i t i a l 
i s s u e i n v o l v e s c o n s t r u c t i o n and 
a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e terms ' c a r r y , ' ' p r o p e r t y , ' and 
' f e e . ' 
A l s o , whether t h e p r o v i s i o n i s 
ambiguous as 
a m a t t e r o f 
l a w . " 
The 
d i s t r i c t 
c o u r t 
n o t e d 
t h a t i t d i d n o t c e r t i f y 
i s s u e s 
" r e l a t e d t o (1) 
w a i v e r and e s t o p p e l ; (2) 
t h e e n f o r c e a b i l i t y o f 
the 
'duty t o n o t i f y ' 
c l a u s e s ; o r t h e r e l e v a n c e o f Alabama 
mandatory i n s u r a n c e o r u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t s 
s t a t u t e s " because 
i t d i d 
n o t v i e w any o f t h e s e i s s u e s as c o n t r o l l i n g . 
2 
1101332 
I I . 
F a c t u a l Background and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y 
The 
d i s t r i c t 
c o u r t 
s e t 
f o r t h 
the 
f o l l o w i n g 
f a c t u a l 
background i n i t s c e r t i f i c a t e : 
" F a c t s and C i r c u m s t a n c e s Out o f Which  
the 
Q u e s t i o n ( s ) A r i s e 
"The 
f a c t s 
as 
s t a t e d are t h o s e found by 
the 
c o u r t a f t e r a n o n - j u r y t r i a l h e l d on June 20, 
2011. 
" T h i s a c t i o n 
a r i s e s out o f a d i s p u t e between 
[ N a t i o n w i d e M u t u a l I n s u r a n c e Company ( ' N a t i o n w i d e ' ) ] 
and the d e f e n d a n t s as t o i n s u r a n c e coverage. [ S c o t t 
Thomas 
and 
L o r i 
T o u a r t 
Thomas 
('the 
Thomas 
d e f e n d a n t s ' ) 
were 
i n j u r e d 
as 
the 
r e s u l t 
o f 
an 
a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t which o c c u r r e d a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 
5:30 a.m. 
on October 12, 2009. 
L o r i Thomas was the 
d r i v e r 
o f 
one 
o f 
the 
v e h i c l e s . 
The 
Thomas 
d e f e n d a n t s have r e c o v e r e d a judgment i n s t a t e c o u r t 
a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t [ K e n n e t h Gene] Gooden, [ J r . , ] the 
d r i v e r o f the o t h e r v e h i c l e . 
The d i s p u t e i n v o l v e s 
whether 
the 
Thomas 
d e f e n d a n t s 
are 
e n t i t l e d 
t o 
r e c o v e r from [ N a t i o n w i d e ] under the p r o v i s i o n s o f a 
N a t i o n w i d e 
a u t o m o b i l e 
l i a b i l i t y 
i n s u r a n c e 
p o l i c y 
naming Gooden as an i n s u r e d . 
The s u b j e c t p o l i c y was 
i s s u e d on J a n u a r y 18, 2008, based on an a p p l i c a t i o n 
d a t e d and s u b m i t t e d by Gooden on December 21, 2007.
2 
"The p e r t i n e n t p r o v i s i o n s i n the s u b j e c t p o l i c y 
and the a p p l i c a t i o n are the 
f o l l o w i n g : 
"'POLICY 
"'1. 
Coverage E x c l u s i o n s 
" ' T h i s coverage does not a p p l y t o : Use 
of 
any motor v e h i c l e t o c a r r y p e r s o n s o r 
p r o p e r t y f o r a f e e . 
"'2. G e n e r a l P o l i c y C o n d i t i o n s 
3 
1101332 
"'We, you, 
and anyone i n s u r e d by t h i s 
p o l i c y must do c e r t a i n t h i n g s i n o r d e r f o r 
the p r o v i s i o n s o f 
t h e 
p o l i c y t o a p p l y . 
The 
f o l l o w i n g a r e p o l i c y c o n d i t i o n s : 
"'1. HOW YOUR POLICY MAY BE CHANGED 
"'1(e) The p o l i c y h o l d e r has a d u t y t o 
n o t i f y us as soon as p o s s i b l e o f 
any change 
w h i c h may a f f e c t t h e premium o r t h e r i s k  
under t h i s p o l i c y . . . . 
T h i s i n c l u d e s , b u t 
i s not l i m i t e d t o , changes i n ... (3) 
use 
of t h e i n s u r e d 
v e h i c l e s . 
(Emphasis added 
[ b y t h e d i s t r i c t 
c o u r t ] . ) 
"'DECEMBER 21, 2007, APPLICATION 
" ' I 
c e r t i f y t h a t t h e v e h i c l e s 
l i s t e d 
f o r coverage on t h i s p o l i c y a r e n o t used 
f o r 
c o m m e r c i a l 
u s e , t h e p i c k 
up and 
d e l i v e r y o f 
goods o r 
p e o p l e , w h i c h i n c l u d e s 
but 
i s n o t 
l i m i t e d 
t o 
p i z z a , 
m a i l , 
n e w s p a p e r s [ , ] t a x i , 
d e b r i s / s n o w 
removal, 
f o r h i r e o r f e e . '
3 
"At 
t h e time 
o f t h e December 
21, 
2007, 
a p p l i c a t i o n , d e f e n d a n t Gooden's s o l e employment was 
w i t h a Honda s u p p l i e r named New S o u t h E x p r e s s . 
He 
was n o t d e l i v e r i n g newspapers o r o t h e r w i s e engaging 
i n any c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t y o t h e r t h a n h i s 
j o b w i t h 
New S o u t h . 
The December 21, 2007, a p p l i c a t i o n and 
a t t a c h m e n t s t o i t were t h e o n l y documents s i g n e d by 
Gooden p r i o r t o t h e date o f t h e a c c i d e n t . 
Gooden 
d i d 
not make 
any 
m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s 
i n t h e 
a p p l i c a t i o n o r i t s a t t a c h m e n t s .
4 
" I n F e b r u a r y 2009, w h i l e c o n t i n u i n g t o 
work 
f u l l 
time 
f o r New 
S o u t h 
E x p r e s s , 
Gooden 
began t h e 
p a r t - t i m e j o b 
o f d e l i v e r i n g t h e T a l l a d e g a 
D a i l y o r 
S y l a c a u g a D a i l y newspaper(s) about one t o two hours 
per 
n i g h t . 
N e i t h e r Gooden nor h i s w i f e , 
a n o t h e r 
named i n s u r e d , e v e r n o t i f i e d N a t i o n w i d e t h a t he had 
begun d e l i v e r i n g newspapers. 
4 
1101332 
"The 
s u b j e c t p o l i c y came up f o r f u r t h e r r e n e w a l 
on about J u l y 18, 2009.
5 
The 
o n l y r e n e w a l n o t i c e 
w h i c h [ N a t i o n w i d e ] 
s e n t 
t o Gooden was 
b a s i c a l l y 
a 
s t a t e m e n t of the premium due.
6 
A t the time of 
the 
J u l y 18, 2009, r e n e w a l , Gooden was 
s t i l l 
d e l i v e r i n g 
the 
T a l l a d e g a / S y l a c a u g a 
newspapers 
and 
was 
s t i l l 
w o r k i n g f u l l - t i m e f o r New S o u t h 
E x p r e s s . 
" I n 
August 
2009, 
Gooden 
began 
d e l i v e r i n g 
newspapers f o r The Birmingham News. 
A t about 
the 
same t i m e , 
he 
t e r m i n a t e d 
h i s employment w i t h 
New 
S o u t h 
E x p r e s s , 
and 
the 
Birmingham News 
d e l i v e r y 
became h i s o n l y j o b . 
No 
n o t i c e o f the Birmingham 
News newspaper 
d e l i v e r y 
was 
g i v e n 
t o 
N a t i o n w i d e 
p r i o r t o the 
a c c i d e n t . 
"On 
October 9, 2009, Gooden's second c h i l d 
was 
b o r n . 
There i s a r e a s o n a b l e 
i n f e r e n c e t h a t 
t h i s 
event a f f e c t e d Gooden's normal newspaper 
d e l i v e r y 
s i t u a t i o n . 
T h i s event, 
c o u p l e d 
w i t h Gooden's 
not 
b e i n g 
a b l e t o remember a n y t h i n g 
from Sunday 
n i g h t 
October 
11, 
2009 
t o Wednesday October 
14, 
2009, 
c r e a t e s 
d i f f i c u l t y w i t h r e g a r d 
t o d e t e r m i n i n g 
the 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
i m m e d i a t e l y 
p r i o r 
t o 
the 
a c c i d e n t . 
Among the c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
were: 
"(1) Gooden p l a n n e d on October 11, 2009, t o p i c k 
h i s 
w i f e 
up 
a t 
the 
h o s p i t a l 
on 
the 
morning 
o f 
October 12, 2009. 
"(2) U n l i k e the u s u a l c i r c u m s t a n c e when h i s w i f e 
or someone e l s e s t a y e d w i t h Gooden's o l d e r c h i l d 
and 
t o o k him 
t o day 
c a r e a t 6:00 
a.m., 
Gooden 
c a r r i e d 
the c h i l d w i t h him on October 12, 2009, when he 
was 
d e l i v e r i n g newspapers and the c h i l d was w i t h Gooden 
a t the time o f the a c c i d e n t . 
T h i s change may 
have 
a f f e c t e d the t i m i n g of the d e l i v e r i e s . 
Gooden 
has 
no e x p l a n a t i o n as t o why 
he would have been a t 
the 
l o c a t i o n of the a c c i d e n t a t the time of the a c c i d e n t 
o t h e r than i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h newspaper d e l i v e r i e s . 
"The 
a c c i d e n t 
o c c u r r e d 
on Houston Road. 
Ms. 
Thomas was h e a d i n g n o r t h on Houston Road and Gooden 
was 
h e a d i n g s o u t h 
on Houston Road, b o t h near 
the 
5 
1101332 
i n t e r s e c t i o n of Houston Road and McCedar Road. 
Ms. 
Thomas t e s t i f i e d t h a t the a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d s o u t h o f 
the McCedar Road i n t e r s e c t i o n . 
"There i s no 
d i r e c t e v i d e n c e as t o why 
Gooden 
was 
on the wrong s i d e of the r o a d as he approached 
Ms. Thomas' v e h i c l e . 
A p o s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e i s t h a t 
he had 
s t a r t e d 
t o t u r n 
l e f t t o go t o Sparrow Lane 
where he had 
customers. 
Any 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n 
by 
the 
c o u r t as t o whether d e l i v e r i e s had been c o m p l e t e d 
would be p r i m a r i l y s p e c u l a t i v e . 
"At the time of the a c c i d e n t , Gooden was headed 
i n a d i r e c t i o n away from b o t h h i s home and the 
day 
c a r e c e n t e r h i s c h i l d 
a t t e n d e d . 
"The 
p a r t i e s have a g r e e d t h a t the o n l y 
f a c t u a l 
d i s p u t e i s whether Gooden was 
s t i l l 
i n the 
p r o c e s s 
of 
d e l i v e r i n g 
newspapers 
a t 
the 
time 
of 
the 
a c c i d e n t . 
He 
was 
e i t h e r 
s t i l l 
i n the p r o c e s s 
o f 
d e l i v e r i n g 
newspapers 
or 
he 
had 
c o m p l e t e d 
the 
d e l i v e r y 
and was 
p r o c e e d i n g 
back home, t o the 
day 
c a r e c e n t e r , or t o a n o t h e r l o c a t i o n .
7 
There i s no 
q u e s t i o n t h a t Houston Road and Sparrow Lane were on 
Gooden's d e l i v e r y 
r o u t e . 
"On 
October 
13, 
2009, 
a 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 
o f 
N a t i o n w i d e 
t o o k 
a 
p h o t o g r a p h 
o f 
the 
i n s i d e 
o f 
Gooden's v e h i c l e which 
r e v e a l e d 
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 
15 
Birmingham News newspapers d a t e d October 12, 2009. 
Gooden n o r m a l l y 
c a r r i e d 
129 
newspapers p l u s some 
e x c e s s newspapers t o c o v e r u n e x p e c t e d 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s . 
Gooden t e s t i f i e d , 
w i t h o u t 
r e b u t t a l , 
t h a t he 
c o u l d 
not t h i n k o f any 
r e a s o n he would have been out 
a t 
5:30 
a.m. 
on 
October 
12, 
2009 
o t h e r 
than 
i n 
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h d e l i v e r i n g newspapers. 
There was 
no 
e v i d e n c e 
a t 
t r i a l 
as 
t o 
the 
l o c a t i o n 
o f 
the 
h o s p i t a l . 
The 
newspapers were 
p i c k e d 
up 
a t 
a 
l o c a t i o n n o r t h of the i n s u r e d ' s house and, 
c o n t r a r y 
t o some s u g g e s t i o n s i n argument a t t r i a l , 
d e l i v e r i e s 
began s u b s t a n t i a l l y n o r t h of McCedar Road. 
"The 
i n s u r e d ' s 
Birmingham 
News 
s u p e r v i s o r 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t i f the i n s u r e d was 
i n the a r e a of the 
6 
1101332 
a c c i d e n t he would have c o m p l e t e d h i s d e l i v e r y r o u t e . 
T h i s i s 
perhaps i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e f a c t o f t h e r e 
b e i n g customers on Houston Road and Sparrow Lane. 
Gooden t e s t i f i e d t h a t he n o r m a l l y would have been t o 
Houston Road by 1:00 t o 1:30 a.m. and t h a t he knew 
of no r e a s o n f o r 
him t o be t h e r e a t 5:30 a.m. and 
had 'no i d e a ' why he was. 
Gooden's 
s u p e r v i s o r 
o f f e r e d t e s t i m o n y t h a t she d i d not r e c e i v e any c a l l s 
about m i s s e d d e l i v e r i e s on October 12 and t h a t would 
n o r m a l l y 
o c c u r i f t h e r e had been 
such m i s s e s . 
Gooden t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t he was u s u a l l y back home by 
5:30 a.m. 
Gooden p i c k e d up h i s newspapers a t 
a s p o t 
n o r t h o f h i s house. 
The a c c i d e n t 
l o c a t i o n was 
s u b s t a n t i a l l y 
s o u t h o f h i s house. 
Gooden has 
t e s t i f i e d , and t h e c o u r t b e l i e v e s , 
t h a t he never 
r e a d t h e s u b j e c t p o l i c y . 
Gooden was p a i d by t h e 
Birmingham News based upon t h e 
number o f newspapers 
he 
d e l i v e r e d 
r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e 
customers. 
" P o s i t i o n s o f t h e P a r t i e s 
" [ N a t i o n w i d e ' s ] P o s i t i o n s 
"1. There i s no coverage because t h e p o l i c y 
p r o v i d e s 
t h a t 
coverage i s e x c l u d e d 
because t h e 
p o l i c y s t a t e s , 'This coverage does n o t 
a p p l y t o : 
Use 
of any motor v e h i c l e t o c a r r y p e r s o n s o r p r o p e r t y 
f o r a f e e . ' F u r t h e r , t h e e x c l u s i o n a p p l i e s even 
i f 
a c t u a l d e l i v e r y has been c o n c l u d e d and Gooden was 
r e t u r n i n g home o r g o i n g e l s e w h e r e . 
"2. There i s 
no coverage because t h e 
i n s u r e d d i d 
not n o t i f y [ N a t i o n w i d e ] 'as soon as p o s s i b l e o f 
any 
change w h i c h may a f f e c t t h e premium o r r i s k under 
t h i s p o l i c y . 
T h i s i n c l u d e s , b u t 
i s 
n o t l i m i t e d 
t o , 
changes 
i n 
use 
o f 
t h e 
i n s u r e d 
v e h i c l e s . ' 
[ N a t i o n w i d e ] makes t h i s 
c l a i m w i t h 
r e g a r d t o 
t h e 
i n s u r e d ' s 
f a i l u r e t o n o t i f y [ N a t i o n w i d e ] p r i o r t o 
the 
J u l y 2009 r e n e w a l o f t h e p o l i c y 
t h a t he was 
d e l i v e r i n g 
p a p e r s 
f o r t h e 
T a l l a d e g a / S y l a c a u g a 
newspapers. 
[ N a t i o n w i d e ] a l s o makes t h i s c l a i m w i t h 
7 
1101332 
r e g a r d t o t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e i n s u r e d t o 
n o t i f y 
[ N a t i o n w i d e ] t h a t t h e i n s u r e d had begun 
d e l i v e r i n g 
newspapers f o r 
t h e Birmingham News a f t e r t h e l a s t 
r e n e w a l . 
Any such c l a i m as t o t h e 
Birmingham News 
l a c k s m e r i t because t h i s d e l i v e r y began a f t e r t h e 
J u l y 2009 r e n e w a l and b e f o r e t h e next 
s c h e d u l e d 
r e n e w a l . 
[ N a t i o n w i d e ] has acknowledged t h a t t h e 
J u l y 
2009 
r e n e w a l 
c o u l d 
n o t be 
c a n c e l l e d o r 
i n v a l i d a t e d f o r t h i s i n t e r v e n i n g reason p r i o r t o t h e 
next s c h e d u l e d renewal d a t e .
8 
"Cases C i t e d by 
[Nationwide] 
"1. Twin C i t y F i r e I n s . Co. v. A l f a M u t u a l 
I n s . 
Co., 817 So. 2d 687 ( A l a . 2001). 
" [ N a t i o n w i d e ] 
c i t e s t h i s case w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o 
g e n e r a l Alabama law r e g a r d i n g enforcement o f p o l i c y 
language, a m b i g u i t i e s , e t c . 
T h i s c o u r t a p p l i e s 
t h e 
p r i n c i p l e s 
o f 
t h i s 
case 
as t o some 
g e n e r a l 
p r i n c i p l e s , b u t n o t n e c e s s a r i l y as t o t h e s p e c i f i c 
i s s u e s 
c e r t i f i e d . 
"2. A l f a 
L i f e I n s . Corp. v. L e w i s , 910 So. 2d 
757 
( A l a . 2005) . 
" T h i s case i n v o l v e s m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made by 
i n s u r e d s . 
There were no such m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n 
t h i s 
case. 
"3. Ex p a r t e Q u a l i t y Cas. I n s . Co., 962 So. 2d 
242 
( A l a . 2006). 
" T h i s 
case 
h o l d s 
t h a t 
m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n 
a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r 
t h e i n i t i a l 
p o l i c y c a r r y over t o 
r e n e w a l s . 
There have been no m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n 
t h i s case. 
[ N a t i o n w i d e ' s ] 
r e l i a n c e on t h i s case i s 
unfounded. 
"4. Johnson v. A l l s t a t e I n s . Co., 505 So. 2d 
362 
( A l a . 1987). 
8 
1101332 
" T h i s 
case 
s t a n d s 
f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n 
t h a t 
coverage cannot be e n l a r g e d by w a i v e r o r e s t o p p e l . 
I t 
a p p a r e n t l y 
has more a p p l i c a t i o n t o 
e x c l u s i o n s 
t h a n t o c o n d i t i o n s o r f u r t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s imposed 
on i n s u r e d s . 
I t 
may a l s o have some a p p l i c a t i o n t o 
the p r i m a r y i s s u e , b u t n o t t o t h e s e c o n d a r y i s s u e . 
"5. W o o d a l l v. A l f a Mut. I n s . 
Co., 658 So. 2d 
369 
( A l a . 1995). 
" T h i s case h o l d s t h a t w a i v e r and e s t o p p e l a r e 
not a p p l i c a b l e t o unambiguous e x c l u s i o n s . 
"6. 
L i b e r t y Mut. F i r e I n s . 
Co. v. P a r i s h , 630 
So. 2d 437 ( A l a . 1993). 
G i v e s a n o t h e r r e a s o n why 
e s t o p p e l and w a i v e r do n o t a p p l y t o e x c l u s i o n s . 
"7. See a l s o McGee v. G u a r d i a n L i f e I n s . 
Co., 
472 So. 2d 993 ( A l a . 1985) ( r e g a r d i n g 
w a i v e r ) . 
" D e f e n d a n t s ' P o s i t i o n s 
"Defendants m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e 
' c a r r y i n g p r o p e r t y 
f o r a f e e ' e x c l u s i o n i s 
ambiguous and n o t a p p l i c a b l e 
t o 
t h e i r 
c l a i m s 
o r 
o t h e r w i s e 
e n f o r c e a b l e . 
Defendants 
f u r t h e r m a i n t a i n 
t h a t t h e i n s u r e d had 
c o m p l e t e d d e l i v e r y o f newspapers a t t h e time o f 
t h e 
a c c i d e n t and t h u s c o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d 
t o have 
been, a t t h a t t i m e , 
c a r r y i n g p r o p e r t y f o r 
a f e e , o r 
t o be s u b j e c t t o i n v a l i d a t i o n o f coverage f o r l a c k 
of g i v i n g n o t i c e o f a change. 
"Defendants a l s o argue t h a t [Nationwide] w a i v e d 
any 
e x c l u s i o n 
and/or 
c o n d i t i o n o f t h e p o l i c y by 
p a y i n g m e d i c a l expenses a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t and by 
r e c e i v i n g and r e t a i n i n g premiums f o r t h e p o l i c y . 
Defendants a l s o argue t h a t a commercial p o l i c y would 
not r e q u i r e a h i g h e r premium than t h e p e r s o n a l 
type 
p o l i c y t h a t t h e i n s u r e d had. 
[The c o u r t f i n d s t h a t 
a commercial p o l i c y would r e q u i r e a h i g h e r premium.] 
9 
1101332 
"The 
d e f e n d a n t s a l s o a s s e r t t h a t t h e p o l i c y ' s 
n o t i c e 
t o 
[Nationwide] 
p r o v i s i o n s 
a r e 
n o t 
e n f o r c e a b l e . 
[The c o u r t agrees w i t h t h i s p o s i t i o n . ] 
The d e f e n d a n t s may have a l s o p i c k e d up on 
q u e s t i o n s 
by t h e c o u r t and now argue t h a t t h e 
Alabama s t a t u t e s 
w i t h 
r e g a r d 
t o mandatory 
i n s u r a n c e 
and 
u n i n s u r e d 
m o t o r i s t have some 
r e l e v a n c e . 
"Cases C i t e d By D e f e n d a n t s 
"1. B l u e Mound Farm S u p p l y Co. v. Farmers' Mut.  
F i r e I n s . 
Co., 219 N.W. 357, 360 (1928). 
" C i t e d f o r 
the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t an e x c l u s i o n o r 
change does n o t always 
a v o i d 
p o l i c y coverage b u t 
m e r e l y 
suspends 
i t d u r i n g 
t h e 
a c t u a l 
time 
o f 
c a r r y i n g . 
"2. 
T r i n i t y U n i v e r s a l I n s . 
Co. v. D a n i e l , 
2 
02 
S.W.2d 266, 267 (Tex. 
C i v . App. 1947) 
" C i t e d f o r s i m i l a r r e a s o n as B l u e Mound. 
"3. Z u r i c h Gen. A c c i d e n t & L i a b . I n s . 
Co. 
L t d . 
 
Of 
Z u r i c h , S w i t z e r l a n d v. F l i c k i n g e r , 33 F.2d 853, 
856 
( 4 t h 
C i r . 1929). 
"'And 
i t i s 
w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t s t a t e m e n t s i n 
an 
a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a 
p o l i c y 
which i s 
renewed 
r e l a t e 
t o t h e 
time 
when t h e 
o r i g i n a l 
p o l i c y i s i s s u e d ; and, i f t h e y 
were t r u e a t t h a t t i m e , i t 
i s no d e f e n s e 
t h a t t h e y may n o t have been t r u e l a t e r o r 
a t t h e time o f t h e r e n e w a l . ' 
( C i t a t i o n s 
o m i t t e d ) . 
"  
"4. 
M i l b a n k Mut. I n s . Co. v. Wentz, 352 F.2d 
592, 596 ( 8 t h 
C i r . 1965). 
10 
1101332 
" M i l b a n k does not i n v o l v e an e x c l u s i o n . 
"5. P r e f e r r e d R i s k Mut. I n s . Co. v. H i t e s , 259 
N.E. 2d 815, 820 (111. App. C t . 1970). 
" T h i s 
case has some r e l e v a n c e 
t o 
p l a i n t i f f ' s 
p o s i t i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o any d u t y o f t h e i n s u r e d t o 
n o t i f y o f changes. 
[ T h i s 
c o u r t 
agrees 
t h a t t h e 
n o t i f i c a t i o n o f change p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s p o l i c y a r e 
ambiguous i n n o t s t a t i n g m a t t e r s 
r e l a t i n g t o t h e 
r e q u i r e d time o f n o t i c e , nor t h e e f f e c t o f a f a i l u r e 
t o n o t i f y . 
F u r t h e r , t h e p r o v i s i o n s i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y 
put a burden on the i n s u r e d t o d e t e r m i n e 
m a t e r i a l 
r i s k and the e f f e c t on premiums. 
There may a l s o be 
a m b i g u i t y w i t h r e g a r d t o the term 'use.'] 
" S t a t u s o f Alabama Law 
"The 
p a r t i e s 
have 
c i t e d 
l i t t l e , 
i f any, 
c o n t r o l l i n g Alabama law on t h e c e r t i f i e d i s s u e s ( s ) .
9 
"
2 F o r 
s e v e r a l 
y e a r s 
p r i o r t o December 
2007, 
Gooden had one v e h i c l e i n s u r e d by [ N a t i o n w i d e ] . 
H i s 
l i a b i l i t y coverage was $25,000/$50,000. 
On J a n u a r y 
18, 
2008, a new 
p o l i c y added a n o t h e r v e h i c l e and 
i n c r e a s e d 
the 
l i a b i l i t y 
coverage 
t o 
$300,000/ 
$300,000. 
N a t i o n w i d e a l s o i s s u e d a new one m i l l i o n 
d o l l a r u m b r e l l a 
p o l i c y t o Gooden a t t h e same 
t i m e . 
There was some c o n f u s i o n 
a t 
t r i a l 
as t o whether 
Gooden had been a N a t i o n w i d e 
i n s u r e d 
f o r 9 y e a r s 
p r i o r t o December 2007. 
Gooden says he began 
t h i s 
r e l a t i o n s h i p i n 2003. 
The c o n f u s i o n 
l i k e l y 
a r i s e s 
because t h e Thomas[es'] a t t o r n e y 
r e a d '9 [6-month] 
terms' as 9 y e a r s . 
"
3Note 
t h a t 
t h e 
a b o v e - s t a t e d 
n o t i f i c a t i o n 
p r o v i s i o n 
i s not 
as 
s p e c i f i c 
as 
t h a t 
i n t h e 
a p p l i c a t i o n . 
11 
1101332 
"
4 [ N a t i o n w i d e ] 
does 
n o t 
c l a i m 
t h a t 
Gooden 
m i s r e p r e s e n t e d a n y t h i n g i n t h e December 21, 2007, 
a p p l i c a t i o n . 
The 
c o u r t 
c o n c l u d e s 
t h a t 
t h e 
' a p p l i c a t i o n ' has no ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' 
t o t h i s case. 
"
5The t h i r d r e n e w a l a f t e r t h e 
J a n u a r y 18, 2008, 
i s s u a n c e . 
"
6There i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t N a t i o n w i d e e v e r s e n t 
Gooden 
any 
r e n e w a l 
n o t i c e 
o r 
o t h e r 
document 
r e g a r d i n g use o f t h e a u t o m o b i l e a f t e r t h e J a n u a r y 
2008 
i s s u a n c e 
o f t h e p o l i c y and p r i o r t o t h e 
a c c i d e n t . 
Any such language t h a t N a t i o n w i d e e v e r 
gave o r s e n t t o Gooden was i n c l u d e d 
o n l y i n 
t h e 
a p p l i c a t i o n and t h e p o l i c y i s s u e d i n 
J a n u a r y 2008. 
"
7 T h i s 
c r e a t e s a f u r t h e r i s s u e as t o whether 
p r o c e e d i n g from where he made h i s l a s t d e l i v e r y t o 
h i s home o r a n o t h e r 
l o c a t i o n would be 
c o n s i d e r e d 
p a r t o f t h e d e l i v e r y p r o c e s s . 
Even i f t h e p r i m a r y 
i s s u e i s d e t e r m i n e d t o be t h a t t h e e x c l u s i o n i s 
g e n e r a l l y e n f o r c e a b l e , t h e s e c o n d a r y i s s u e i s s t i l l 
not answered. 
"
8 T h i s 
i s 
d i s t i n g u i s h e d 
from 
argued 
i n v a l i d a t i o n s based on t h e f a i l u r e t o n o t i f y o f t h e 
o t h e r newspaper d e l i v e r i e s p r i o r t o J u l y 2009 and 
from t h e c a r r y i n g o f p r o p e r t y 
f o r a f e e e x c l u s i o n . 
"
9The c o u r t n o t e s t h a t some h e l p may be o f f e r e d 
i n Couch on I n s u r a n c e , 
T h i r d 
E d i t i o n a t s e c t i o n s 
29:32, 119.75, 119.76 and 120.34. 
The i s s u e s a r e 
a l s o 
d i s c u s s e d 
a t 57 A.L.R. 5 t h 591 
[ ( 1 9 9 8 ) ] . 
Johnson v. A l l s t a t e I n s . Co., 505 So. 2d 362 ( A l a . 
1987), 
l i s t s 
s e v e r a l 
f a c t o r s 
w h i c h 
s h o u l d 
be 
c o n s i d e r e d 
i n d e t e r m i n i n g 
t h e e n f o r c e a b i l i t y o f 
' c a r r y i n g f o r 
a f e e . ' 
These i n c l u d e : (1) whether 
the amount charged was d e f i n i t e ; (2) p r o p o r t i o n a t e 
t o t h e t r i p ; (3) v o l u n t a r y o r p a i d t o t h e d r i v e r as 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n ; 
and (4) whether 
t h e d r i v e r and 
p a s s e n g e r s were engaged i n 
a common e n t e r p r i s e . As 
12 
1101332 
s t a t e d , t h e case does n o t address t h e secondary 
i s s u e . 
F o r a good 
g e n e r a l 
d i s c u s s i o n , see RPM  
P i z z a , I n c . 
v. [Automotive] C a s u a l t y I n s . 
Co., 601 
So. 2d [1366] 
[ 
(La. 1 9 9 2 ) ] . " 
I I I . 
A n a l y s i s 
T h i s C o u r t has agreed t o p r o v i d e 
c o n t r o l l i n g 
Alabama law 
as t o t h e two c e r t i f i e d 
q u e s t i o n s .
1 
A. Q u e s t i o n No. 1: 
Whether t h e C a r r y - F o r - A - F e e  
E x c l u s i o n A p p l i e s t o Newspaper D e l i v e r y 
N a t i o n w i d e M u t u a l I n s u r a n c e Company ("Nationwide") 
argues 
t h a t t h e c l a u s e 
i n i t s 
p o l i c y e x c l u d i n g 
coverage 
i f 
t h e 
i n s u r e d i s 
engaged i n 
t h e " c a r r y i n g o f p e r s o n s o r p r o p e r t y f o r 
a f e e " ("the c a r r y - f o r - a - f e e e x c l u s i o n " ) i s 
unambiguous and i s 
e n f o r c e a b l e 
as t o Gooden, who 
was 
employed 
t o d e l i v e r 
newspapers, who was compensated by t h e number o f newspapers 
d e l i v e r e d , 
and who 
used h i s p e r s o n a l 
v e h i c l e 
f o r t h o s e 
d e l i v e r i e s . 
S c o t t Thomas and L o r i T o u a r t Thomas argue 
t h a t 
1 N a t i o n w i d e M u t u a l I n s u r a n c e Company r a i s e s an i s s u e i n 
i t s b r i e f as t o Kenneth Gene Gooden, J r . ' s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o 
comply w i t h t h e n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e p o l i c y , an i s s u e t h e 
d i s t r i c t 
c o u r t has a l r e a d y 
r e s o l v e d ; S c o t t Thomas and L o r i 
T o u a r t 
Thomas 
r a i s e 
i n 
t h e i r 
b r i e f 
t h e 
i s s u e 
whether 
N a t i o n w i d e has met i t s 
burden o f p r o v i n g t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r 
l o s s 
f e l l w i t h i n t h e c a r r y - f o r - a - f e e e x c l u s i o n , a m a t t e r we 
l e a v e t o be r e s o l v e d by t h e d i s t r i c t 
c o u r t . 
13 
1101332 
the c a r r y - f o r - a - f e e e x c l u s i o n i s ambiguous and t h e r e f o r e , t h e y 
argue, not 
e n f o r c e a b l e .
2 
T h i s 
C o u r t 
has 
p r e v i o u s l y 
a d d r e s s e d 
a 
s i m i l a r 
e x c l u s i o n a r y 
c l a u s e when the 
i n s u r e d 
was 
u s i n g 
a 
p e r s o n a l 
v e h i c l e 
t o t r a n s p o r t p e r s o n s f o r a f e e . 
In U n i t e d 
S t a t e s 
 
F i d e l i t y 
& Guaranty Co. 
v. Hearn, 233 
A l a . 
31, 
170 
So. 
59 
(1936), the i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y a t i s s u e e x c l u d e d coverage i f the 
i n s u r e d v e h i c l e was b e i n g used " f o r c a r r y i n g p a s s e n g e r s f o r a 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n . " 
233 
A l a . a t 33, 
170 
So. 
a t 60 
( o p i n i o n 
on 
r e h e a r i n g ) . 
Hearn used h i s a u t o m o b i l e t o t r a v e l w i t h 
s e v e r a l 
p a s s e n g e r s from Alabama t o a t t e n d a Rose Bowl f o o t b a l l game i n 
C a l i f o r n i a . 
Hearn's l i v i n g expenses on the 
t r i p were t o 
be 
p a i d from j o i n t funds c o n t r i b u t e d by 
h i s p a s s e n g e r s . 
T h i s 
C o u r t found t h a t the p a r t i e s a g r e e d and i n t e n d e d 
t h a t Hearn's 
c o n t r i b u t i o n 
t o the 
t r i p 
was 
t o be 
h i s a u t o m o b i l e and 
h i s 
s e r v i c e s i n d r i v i n g ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e y c o n c l u d e d , the payment of 
h i s expenses was 
not c o n s i d e r a t i o n p a i d by the p a s s e n g e r s i n 
exchange f o r the 
t r i p . 
S t a t i n g t h a t 
" [ e ] a c h 
e n t e r p r i s e 
or 
a d v e n t u r e i s t o be j u d g e d on i t s p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s , " the C o u r t 
2 A l t h o u g h Gooden i s named as a p a r t y i n t h i s case, he 
has 
not 
f i l e d a b r i e f w i t h t h i s C o u r t . 
14 
1101332 
h e l d t h a t the c a r r y - f o r - a - f e e e x c l u s i o n d i d not a p p l y because 
" a l l the p a r t i e s who went were engaged i n a common e n t e r p r i s e 
or j o i n t a d v e n t u r e f o r p l e a s u r e . " 
233 A l a . a t 34, 170 So. a t 
61 ( o p i n i o n on 
r e h e a r i n g ) . 
In I m p e r i a l A s s u r a n c e Co. v. P e r r y , 252 A l a . 424, 41 So. 
2d 394 
(1949), the i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y e x c l u d e d coverage 
d u r i n g 
the time the i n s u r e d v e h i c l e was b e i n g used " t o c a r r y p e r s o n s 
f o r a c h a r g e . " 
252 A l a . a t 425, 41 So. 2d a t 395. 
P e r r y 
o b t a i n e d a t a x i l i c e n s e when he p u r c h a s e d an a u t o m o b i l e , b u t 
the e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had used the a u t o m o b i l e o n l y t o 
t r a n s p o r t h i s f r i e n d s and had never used the a u t o m o b i l e t o 
t r a n s p o r t 
p a y i n g p a s s e n g e r s . 
W h i l e 
P e r r y was 
d r i v i n g h i s 
a u t o m o b i l e t o p i c k up h i s w i f e , accompanied by a f r i e n d 
who 
was 
a nonpaying p a s s e n g e r , 
P e r r y was 
i n v o l v e d i n a motor-
v e h i c l e a c c i d e n t . 
T h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t the 
c a r r y - f o r - a - f e e 
e x c l u s i o n was "based on the use o f the a u t o m o b i l e a t the time 
of the a c c i d e n t " and f u r t h e r h e l d t h a t the e v i d e n c e d i d not 
prove t h a t , a t the time o f the a c c i d e n t , the i n s u r e d was 
u s i n g 
the a u t o m o b i l e " t o c a r r y p e r s o n s f o r a c h a r g e . " 
I d . 
In Johnson 
v. 
A l l s t a t e 
I n s u r a n c e Co., 
505 
So. 
2d 
362 
( A l a . 
1987), 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
r e c o g n i z e d 
t h a t , 
as 
t o 
the 
15 
1101332 
t r a n s p o r t i n g 
of 
c h i l d r e n t o 
and 
from a d a y - c a r e 
c e n t e r , 
a 
s i m i l a r 
c a r r y - f o r - a - f e e 
e x c l u s i o n 
was 
c l e a r 
and 
t h a t 
the 
i n s u r e r was 
e n t i t l e d t o 
l i m i t coverage under the 
e x c l u s i o n . 
In Johnson, the i n s u r e d used h i s p e r s o n a l v e h i c l e t o 
t r a n s p o r t 
c h i l d r e n 
d a i l y 
t o 
and 
from 
h i s 
d a y - c a r e 
c e n t e r , 
c h a r g i n g 
p a r e n t s 
$1.00 
per 
c h i l d 
each way 
f o r 
t h i s 
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n 
s e r v i c e . 
When the 
i n s u r e d 
was 
i n v o l v e d 
i n a m o t o r - v e h i c l e 
a c c i d e n t 
w h i l e 
he was 
t r a n s p o r t i n g 
c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d i n 
the 
d a y - c a r e c e n t e r , 
the 
i n s u r e r d e c l i n e d 
coverage because 
the 
i n s u r e d was 
" c a r r y i n g " the c h i l d r e n i n exchange f o r payment. 
The 
l i a b i l i t y 
p r o v i s i o n 
of 
the 
p o l i c y i n Johnson 
e x c l u d e d 
l i a b i l i t y f o r the i n s u r e d v e h i c l e " w h i l e used t o c a r r y p e r s o n s 
or p r o p e r t y 
f o r a c h a r g e , " but the e x c l u s i o n d i d not a p p l y t o 
" s h a r e d expense c a r p o o l s . " 
L i k e w i s e , the c o l l i s i o n p r o v i s i o n 
of t h a t p o l i c y e x c l u d e d coverage f o r "any 
auto used f o r 
the 
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n 
of p e o p l e 
or 
p r o p e r t y 
f o r a 
f e e , " 
but 
t h a t 
e x c l u s i o n 
a l s o d i d not a p p l y t o " s h a r e d expense c a r 
p o o l s . " 
505 
So. 
2d a t 
364. 
In Johnson, t h i s C o u r t r e v i e w e d the 
g e n e r a l 
p r i n c i p l e s 
a p p l i c a b l e t o the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y : 
16 
1101332 
"Any 
a m b i g u i t i e s i n an i n s u r a n c e 
c o n t r a c t must 
be 
c o n s t r u e d 
l i b e r a l l y i n f a v o r o f t h e i n s u r e d . 
U n i t e d S t a t e s 
F i d e l i t y & Guaranty Co. v. Baker, 2 
4 
A l a . App. 274, 134 So. 894, c e r t . d e n i e d 223 A l a . 
172, 134 So. 896 (1931). 
A c o r o l l a r y t o t h i s r u l e 
i s t h a t e x c e p t i o n s t o coverage must be i n t e r p r e t e d 
as n a r r o w l y as p o s s i b l e i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e maximum 
coverage t o t h e i n s u r e d . 
However, c o u r t s a r e 
n o t 
a t 
l i b e r t y t o r e w r i t e p o l i c i e s t o p r o v i d e coverage n o t 
i n t e n d e d by t h e p a r t i e s . 
Newman v. S t . P a u l F i r e &  
M a r i n e I n s u r a n c e Co., 456 So. 2d 40, 41 ( A l a . 1984) . 
In 
t h e absence 
o f 
s t a t u t o r y 
p r o v i s i o n s t o t h e 
c o n t r a r y , 
i n s u r a n c e 
companies have t h e r i g h t t o 
l i m i t t h e i r l i a b i l i t y and w r i t e p o l i c i e s w i t h narrow 
coverage. 
U n i t e d S t a t e s F i d e l i t y & Guaranty Co. v.  
B o n i t z I n s u l a t i o n Co. o f Alabama, 424 So. 2d 569, 
573 
( A l a . 1982). 
I f t h e r e i s 
no a m b i g u i t y , 
c o u r t s 
must 
e n f o r c e 
i n s u r a n c e 
c o n t r a c t s as w r i t t e n and 
cannot 
d e f e a t 
e x p r e s s 
p r o v i s i o n s 
i n a 
p o l i c y , 
i n c l u d i n g e x c l u s i o n s from coverage, by making a new 
c o n t r a c t f o r 
t h e p a r t i e s . 
Turner v. U n i t e d 
S t a t e s  
F i d e l i t y & Guaranty Co., 440 So. 2d 1026, 1028 ( A l a . 
1983) . 
"We have c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t coverage under 
an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y cannot be e n l a r g e d by w a i v e r o r 
e s t o p p e l , s i n c e t h e s e d o c t r i n e s can have a f i e l d o f 
o p e r a t i o n o n l y when t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r i s 
w i t h i n t h e 
terms o f t h e p o l i c y . 
Mooradian v. C a n a l 
I n s u r a n c e  
Co., 272 A l a . 373, 379, 130 So. 2d 915, 920 
(1961). 
The 
r e a s o n 
b e h i n d 
t h i s 
r u l e i s t h a t 
w a i v e r 
and 
e s t o p p e l 
cannot o p e r a t e 
t o change t h e terms o f a 
p o l i c y so as t o cover 
a d d i t i o n a l m a t t e r . 
Hanover 
 
F i r e I n s u r a n c e Co. o f New York v. S a l t e r , 254 A l a . 
500, 505, 49 So. 2d 193, 197 
(1950)." 
505 So. 2d a t 365. 
A p p l y i n g 
those 
p r i n c i p l e s t o t h e f a c t s 
b e f o r e 
i t , 
t h i s i n C o u r t i n Johnson h e l d : 
17 
1101332 
"What i s c e n t r a l t o t h i s a p p e a l i s 
whether t h e 
amount c h a r g e d was a d e f i n i t e amount, whether i t 
was 
p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e a c t u a l expenses o f t h e t r i p , 
whether i t 
was v o l u n t a r y o r , r a t h e r , was p a i d as 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o 
t h e d r i v e r , and whether t h e d r i v e r 
and p a s s e n g e r s were engaged i n 
a common e n t e r p r i s e . 
Johnson's d e p o s i t i o n 
demonstrates 
t h a t t h e d o l l a r 
per 
t r i p was a d e f i n i t e amount u n r e l a t e d t o 
h i s 
a c t u a l 
expenses, 
p a i d 
as 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n 
f o r 
t r a n s p o r t i n g 
s t u d e n t s who were not engaged i n a 
common e n t e r p r i s e w i t h him. 
Under t h i s 
e v i d e n c e , 
t h e r e i s 
no q u e s t i o n 
t h a t any c l a i m s 
a r i s i n g out 
o f 
t h i s a c c i d e n t a r e e x c l u d e d under t h e l i a b i l i t y and 
c o l l i s i o n coverages o f t h e 
p o l i c y . 
"The 
a u t o m o b i l e 
l i a b i l i t y 
i n s u r a n c e 
p o l i c y a t 
i s s u e 
here 
c l e a r l y 
l i m i t s 
t h e r i s k s 
c o v e r e d by 
e x c l u d i n g from coverage v e h i c l e s w h i c h a r e used t o 
t r a n s p o r t 
p a y i n g p a s s e n g e r s . 
Under Alabama law, 
i n s u r e r s have t h e 
r i g h t t o 
so l i m i t t h e i r 
l i a b i l i t y . 
C o u r t s w h i c h have i n t e r p r e t e d p o l i c i e s w i t h s i m i l a r 
e x c l u s i o n a r y c l a u s e s have r e c o g n i z e d 
t h i s 
l i m i t a t i o n 
on 
coverage 
by 
d e t e r m i n i n g 
t h a t , 
a l t h o u g h t h e 
l i m i t a t i o n does n o t a p p l y t o p l e a s u r e 
t r i p s made by 
f r i e n d s o r r e l a t i v e s o r 
t o 
c a r 
p o o l s i t u a t i o n s where 
the amount c o l l e c t e d by t h e d r i v e r i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e 
t o t h e 
expense o f t h e j o u r n e y , t h e r i s k s 
a s s o c i a t e d 
w i t h v e h i c l e s used t o c a r r y p a y i n g p a s s e n g e r s f o r a 
s e t f e e 
do n o t 
come w i t h i n t h e r i s k s c o v e r e d by such 
p o l i c i e s . " 
505 So. 2d a t 
367. 
The 
q u e s t i o n now b e f o r e us i s 
whether a c a r r y - f o r - a - f e e 
e x c l u s i o n may be e n f o r c e d 
i n t h e case o f an i n s u r e d who 
d e l i v e r s newspapers and 
i s 
compensated based on t h e 
number o f 
newspapers d e l i v e r e d . 
I n o r d e r t o answer t h a t q u e s t i o n , we 
18 
1101332 
must d e t e r m i n e whether t h e c a r r y - f o r - a - f e e e x c l u s i o n i n 
t h e 
N a t i o n w i d e 
p o l i c y i s 
ambiguous. 
I n Twin C i t y F i r e 
I n s u r a n c e 
Co. v. A l f a M u t u a l 
I n s u r a n c e Co., 817 So. 2d 687, 692 ( A l a . 
2001), 
t h i s C o u r t 
d i s c u s s e d t h e i s s u e o f a m b i g u i t y i n an 
i n s u r a n c e 
p o l i c y : 
" I f an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i s c l e a r and unambiguous 
i n 
i t s terms, 
then 
t h e r e 
i s no 
q u e s t i o n 
o f 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o r c o n s t r u c t i o n . American & F o r e i g n  
I n s . Co. v. Tee Jays Mfg. Co., 699 So. 2d 1226 ( A l a . 
1997). 
The f a c t 
t h a t t h e p a r t i e s 
i n t e r p r e t t h e 
i n s u r a n c e 
p o l i c y 
d i f f e r e n t l y does n o t make t h e 
i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y ambiguous. 
Tate v. A l l s t a t e I n s . 
 
Co., 692 So. 2d 822 ( A l a . 1997) . 
W h i l e a m b i g u i t i e s 
or u n c e r t a i n t i e s 
i n an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y s h o u l d be 
r e s o l v e d a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e r , a m b i g u i t i e s a r e 
n o t 
t o 
be 
i n s e r t e d 
by 
s t r a i n e d 
o r 
t w i s t e d 
r e a s o n i n g . 
K e l l e y v. R o y a l Globe I n s . Co., 349 So. 2d 561 ( A l a . 
1977). 
Where t h e p a r t i e s 
d i s a g r e e on whether t h e 
language i n an i n s u r a n c e 
c o n t r a c t i s ambiguous, a 
c o u r t 
s h o u l d 
c o n s t r u e 
language 
a c c o r d i n g t o t h e 
meaning t h a t a p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y i n t e l l i g e n c e would 
r e a s o n a b l y g i v e i t . Western W o r l d I n s . Co. v. C i t y  
of Tuscumbia, 612 So. 2d 1159 ( A l a . 1992). 
"  
"Where an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y d e f i n e s c e r t a i n words 
or p h r a s e s , a c o u r t must d e f e r t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n 
p r o v i d e d by t h e p o l i c y . 
S t . P a u l F i r e & M a r i n e 
I n s . 
 
Co. 
v. Edge Mem'l Hosp., 584 So. 2d 1316 
( A l a . 
1991). 
... 
I f [a word o r phrase] was d e f i n e d we 
would 
d e f e r 
t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n 
p r o v i d e d 
by t h e 
p o l i c y . 
S t . P a u l F i r e & M a r i n e I n s . 
Co. v. Edge  
Mem'l Hosp. 
, 
s u p r a . 
[ I f ] i t i s n o t , we 
must 
d e t e r m i n e t h e meaning o f t h e p h r a s e . 
An u n d e f i n e d 
word o r p h r a s e i n an i n s u r a n c e 
p o l i c y 
does n o t 
19 
1101332 
c r e a t e an i n h e r e n t 
a m b i g u i t y . 
To t h e c o n t r a r y , 
where 
q u e s t i o n s 
a r i s e as t o t h e meaning o f an 
u n d e f i n e d word o r p h r a s e , t h e c o u r t 
s h o u l d 
s i m p l y 
g i v e t h e u n d e f i n e d word o r p h r a s e t h e same meaning 
t h a t a p e r s o n o f o r d i n a r y 
i n t e l l i g e n c e would 
g i v e 
i t . 
C a r p e t 
I n s t a l l a t i o n & S u p p l i e s o f Glenco v.  
A l f a Mut. I n s . 
Co., 628 So. 2d 560 ( A l a . 1993)." 
A l t h o u g h t h e 
N a t i o n w i d e p o l i c y does n o t d e f i n e t h e terms used 
i n t h e c a r r y - f o r - a - f e e e x c l u s i o n , t h e terms a r e 
n o t u n u s u a l , 
t e c h n i c a l , o r o t h e r w i s e u n c l e a r . 
We c o n c l u d e t h a t a p e r s o n o f 
o r d i n a r y 
i n t e l l i g e n c e would 
i n t e r p r e t t h e c a r r y - f o r - a - f e e 
e x c l u s i o n t o mean t h a t an i n s u r a n c e 
p o l i c y c o n t a i n i n g such a 
c l a u s e 
w i l l n o t p r o v i d e 
coverage i f 
t h e i n s u r e d used t h e 
c o v e r e d 
motor 
v e h i c l e 
t o 
t r a n s p o r t 
p r o p e r t y , 
such 
as 
newspapers, f o r w h i c h t h e i n s u r e d 
r e c e i v e s 
compensation; 
t h e r e f o r e , n e i t h e r t h e c a r r y - f o r - a - f e e e x c l u s i o n as a whole 
nor t h e i n d i v i d u a l terms i n 
t h e e x c l u s i o n a r e ambiguous. 
Whether a 
s p e c i f i c 
c a r r y - f o r - a - f e e 
e x c l u s i o n 
can be 
a p p l i e d t o a s p e c i f i c 
i n s u r e d , 
however, i s a f a c t - d r i v e n 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n , 
as Hearn, P e r r y , and Johnson a l l make c l e a r . 
The 
f i n d e r o f f a c t i n each case must d e t e r m i n e whether a 
p a r t i c u l a r 
i n s u r e d d i d 
i n f a c t p u t a c o v e r e d v e h i c l e t o an 
e x c l u d e d u s e . Based upon our h o l d i n g s i n Hearn, P e r r y , and 
Johnson and upon our a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s 
C o u r t ' s 
c a s e l a w 
20 
1101332 
c o n c e r n i n g 
t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f an i n s u r a n c e 
p o l i c y , we 
c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e 
answer t o 
t h e f i r s t 
c e r t i f i e d q u e s t i o n i s 
yes: A c l a u s e i n an a u t o m o b i l e 
l i a b i l i t y - i n s u r a n c e 
p o l i c y 
e x c l u d i n g coverage f o r t h e 
"use 
o f 
any 
motor v e h i c l e t o c a r r y 
p e r s o n s o r p r o p e r t y f o r 
a f e e " 
can be e n f o r c e d as t o an 
i n s u r e d i f 
t h e f i n d e r o f f a c t 
c o n c l u d e s 
t h a t t h e i n s u r e d 
d e l i v e r s newspapers f o r a f e e 
and t h a t t h e 
i n s u r e d was u s i n g 
the 
c o v e r e d 
v e h i c l e f o r t h a t purpose a t t h e time o f 
t h e 
a c c i d e n t .
3 
3 O t h e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n s have r e a c h e d 
s i m i l a r 
c o n c l u s i o n s . 
See, e.g., U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Milwaukee G u a r d i a n I n s . Co., 
966 
F.2d 
1246 ( 8 t h 
C i r . 1992); 
A m e r i s u r e I n s . 
Co. v. G r a f f  
C h e v r o l e t , 
I n c . , 257 M i c h . App. 585, 
669 N.W.2d 304, 309-10 
(2003) 
, r e v ' d on o t h e r grounds, 469 
M i c h . 1003, 674 
N.W.2d 
379 
(2004) 
; S t r a d e r v. P r o g r e s s i v e I n s . , 230 S.W.3d 621 (Mo. C t . 
App. 
2 
0 
0 
7 ) ; P r o g r e s s i v e U n i v e r s a l I n s . Co. 
o f I l l . v. L i b e r t y 
 
Mut. 
F i r e I n s . Co., 
347 I l l . App. 
3d 411, 282 I l l . Dec. 636, 
805 N.E.2d 1224 (2004); A l m e n d r a l v. S e c u r i t y N a t ' l I n s . Co., 
704 So. 2d 728 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . 
App. 1998). 
But see, e.g., 
P r o g r e s s i v e Cas. 
I n s . Co. 
v. M e t c a l f , 501 
N.W. 690 (Minn. C t . 
App. 
1993); RPM P i z z a , I n c . v. A u t o m o t i v e Cas. 
I n s . Co., 
601 
So. 2d 1366 (La. 1992); U n i t e d S t a t e s F i d e l i t y & Guaranty Co. 
 
v. L i g h t n i n g Rod 
Mut. 
I n s . Co., 
80 Ohio S t . 3d 584, 687 N.E.2d 
717 
(1997); 
P r u d e n t i a l Prop. & Cas. 
I n s . Co. v. S a r t n o , 588 
Pa. 205, 
903 
A.2d 
1170 (2006); 
U n i t e d S e r v s . Auto. Ass'n v.  
Couch, 643 S.W.2d 668 (Tenn. C t . 
App. 1982); P i z z a Hut 
o f 
 
A m e r i c a , 
I n c . v. West Gen. I n s . Co., 3 
6 Ark. App. 16, 
816 
S.W.2d 638 (1991); 
F i r s t G e o r g i a I n s . Co. 
v. Goodrum, 187 
Ga. 
App. 314, 
370 S.E.2d 162 (1988); P r o g r e s s i v e G u l f I n s . Co. 
v. 
 
We Care Day Care C t r . , I n c . , 953 So. 2d 250 ( M i s s . C t . App. 
2007) . 
21 
1101332 
B. Q u e s t i o n No. 
2: 
Whether the C a r r y - F o r - A - F e e  
E x c l u s i o n A p p l i e s A f t e r D e l i v e r y I s Complete 
Alabama law 
c o n c e r n i n g e x c l u s i o n s 
from coverage i n 
an 
i n s u r a n c e 
p o l i c y i s w e l l 
s e t t l e d . 
as 
maximum 
" ' E x c e p t i o n s 
t o 
coverage must 
be 
i n t e r p r e t e d 
n a r r o w l y 
as 
p o s s i b l e 
i n o r d e r 
t o p r o v i d e 
maxi 
coverage f o r the i n s u r e d , and must be c o n s t r u e d most 
s t r o n g l y a g a i n s t 
the company t h a t drew the 
p o l i c y 
and i s s u e d 
i t . ' 
A l l i a n c e I n s . Co. 
v. R e y n o l d s , 
494 
So. 
2d 
609, 
612 
( A l a . 1986) . 
Where t h e r e 
i s 
no 
a m b i g u i t y i n the terms o f an i n s u r a n c e 
c o n t r a c t , 
the 
language must be 
e n f o r c e d 
as 
w r i t t e n , 
and 
c o u r t s 
cannot 
d e f e a t 
e x p r e s s 
p r o v i s i o n s 
i n 
a 
p o l i c y , 
i n c l u d i n g e x c l u s i o n s from coverage, by making a 
new 
c o n t r a c t f o r the p a r t i e s ; however, '"when a m b i g u i t y 
e x i s t s 
i n 
the 
language 
of 
an 
e x c l u s i o n , 
the 
e x c l u s i o n 
w i l l 
be 
c o n s t r u e d 
so 
as 
t o 
l i m i t 
the 
e x c l u s i o n 
t o 
the 
n a r r o w e s t a p p l i c a t i o n r e a s o n a b l e 
under the w o r d i n g . " ' 
C a r p e t I n s t a l l a t i o n & S u p p l i e s  
of Glenco v. A l f a Mut. 
I n s . Co., 
628 So. 2d 560, 
562 
( A l a . 
1993) 
( q u o t i n g 
S t . P a u l M e r c u r y I n s . 
Co. 
v. 
 
C h i l t o n - S h e l b y 
M e n t a l 
H e a l t h 
C t r . , 
595 
So. 
2d 
[1375,] 1377 
[ ( A l a . 
1 9 8 2 ) ] ) . " 
P o r t e r f i e l d v. Audubon Indem. Co., 
856 
So. 
2d 789, 
806 
( A l a . 
2002). 
See 
a l s o Johnson, 505 
So. 
2d a t 
365. 
Alabama law r e q u i r e s not o n l y t h a t we c o n s t r u e the c a r r y -
f o r - a - f e e 
e x c l u s i o n 
as n a r r o w l y as p o s s i b l e t o p r o v i d e 
the 
maximum coverage f o r the i n s u r e d , but a l s o t h a t we e n f o r c e 
the 
e x c l u s i o n as w r i t t e n . 
F u r t h e r m o r e , t h i s C o u r t h e l d i n Hearn, 
P e r r y , and Johnson t h a t the e n f o r c e a b i l i t y of the c a r r y - f o r - a -
22 
1101332 
fee e x c l u s i o n i s based on the use of the c o v e r e d v e h i c l e a t 
the time o f the a c c i d e n t . 
I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the 
f o r e g o i n g 
r e q u i r e m e n t s , 
we c o n c l u d e 
t h a t the e x c l u s i o n a p p l i e s so l o n g 
as 
the 
i n s u r e d 
i s u s i n g 
the 
c o v e r e d 
v e h i c l e t o 
d e l i v e r 
newspapers, 
b u t 
t h a t 
a f t e r 
d e l i v e r y i s complete 
and 
the 
c o v e r e d v e h i c l e i s no l o n g e r b e i n g used f o r d e l i v e r y p u r p o s e s , 
the e x c l u s i o n does not a p p l y . 
In o t h e r words, the 
c a r r y - f o r -
a-fee e x c l u s i o n would a p p l y b e g i n n i n g w i t h the p o i n t when the 
newspapers are l o a d e d 
i n t o the v e h i c l e and would not 
a p p l y 
a f t e r 
the 
l a s t 
newspaper 
i s d e l i v e r e d . 
Based upon 
our 
a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t ' s c a s e l a w on the c o n s t r u c t i o n of an 
e x c l u s i o n a r y c l a u s e i n an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y , we c o n c l u d e 
t h a t 
the answer t o the second c e r t i f i e d q u e s t i o n i s no: A c l a u s e i n 
an a u t o m o b i l e 
l i a b i l i t y - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y e x c l u d i n g coverage 
f o r the "use o f any motor v e h i c l e t o c a r r y p e r s o n s or p r o p e r t y 
f o r 
a f e e " cannot be 
e n f o r c e d 
as 
t o an 
i n s u r e d a f t e r 
the 
d e l i v e r y of the " p r o p e r t y , " i . e . , newspapers i n t h i s case, i s 
complete. 
IV. 
C o n c l u s i o n 
We 
answer 
the 
f i r s t 
c e r t i f i e d 
q u e s t i o n 
i n 
the 
a f f i r m a t i v e ; we answer the second c e r t i f i e d q u e s t i o n i n the 
n e g a t i v e . 
23 
1101332 
QUESTIONS ANSWERED. 
Malone, C.J., and W o o d a l l , 
S t u a r t , 
B o l i n , and P a r k e r , 
J J . , 
concur. 
Murdock, Shaw, and Wise, J J . , d i s s e n t 
24 
1101332 
MURDOCK, J u s t i c e ( d i s s e n t i n g ) . 
W i t h r e s p e c t 
t o " q u e s t i o n s 
o f s t a t e l a w , " the Alabama 
C o n s t i t u t i o n ,
4 as implemented by R u l e 18, A l a . R. App. 
P., 
c r e a t e s an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l 
p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t t h e 
i s s u a n c e by t h i s C o u r t o f a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n s . 
R u l e 18 p r o v i d e s 
t h a t 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
may 
answer 
d e t e r m i n a t i v e 
" q u e s t i o n s 
or 
p r o p o s i t i o n s o f law o f t h i s S t a t e " which a r e c e r t i f i e d t o 
i t 
by a 
f e d e r a l 
c o u r t 
and as t o which 
" t h e r e 
are no 
c l e a r 
c o n t r o l l i n g p r e c e d e n t s i n t h e d e c i s i o n s o f t h e Supreme C o u r t 
o f t h i s S t a t e . " 
I do not b e l i e v e e i t h e r q u e s t i o n t h e C o u r t 
answers t o d a y i s w i t h i n t h e c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f R u l e 18. 
In a n s w e r i n g t h e f i r s t q u e s t i o n 
c e r t i f i e d t o us, t h e main 
o p i n i o n acknowledges a p p l i c a b l e p r i n c i p l e s "of law of 
t h i s 
S t a t e " p e r t a i n i n g t o c o n t r a c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t a r e a l r e a d y 
w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n " c l e a r c o n t r o l l i n g p r e c e d e n t s . " 
The main 
o p i n i o n s i m p l y a p p l i e s t h e s e e s t a b l i s h e d l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s t o 
the f a c t s o f t h i s case, i . e . , t h e c o n t r a c t language a t i s s u e , 
t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t 
t h a t language i s unambiguous. 
The main 
o p i n i o n then a p p l i e s t h i s unambiguous c o n t r a c t language t o the 
4See A l a . Const. 1901, § 140(b)("The supreme c o u r t 
s h a l l 
have 
o r i g i n a l 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
... 
(3) t o answer q u e s t i o n s 
of 
 
s t a t e 
law 
c e r t i f i e d 
by 
a 
c o u r t 
of t h e 
U n i t e d 
S t a t e s . " 
(emphasis a d d e d ) ) . 
25 
1101332 
even more p a r t i c u l a r f a c t o f t h e type o f p r o p e r t y 
b e i n g 
d e l i v e r e d i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case -- newspapers. 
I b e l i e v e (and i t 
appears t h a t the main o p i n i o n agrees) 
t h a t t h e p o l i c y language does n o t p r o v i d e 
an 
unambiguous 
answer t o t h e second q u e s t i o n . 
The main o p i n i o n c o n s t r u e s t h e 
language a t i s s u e t o mean t h a t t h e p o l i c y e x c l u s i o n ends t h e 
moment t h e l a s t newspaper i s thrown from t h e c a r . I t goes 
f u r t h e r , however, and answers a q u e s t i o n n o t c e r t i f i e d by the 
f e d e r a l c o u r t , namely, when t h e e x c l u s i o n b e g i n s t o a p p l y . 
As 
t o 
t h i s 
l a t t e r 
i s s u e , 
t h e main 
o p i n i o n 
h o l d s 
t h a t t h e 
e x c l u s i o n a p p l i e s o n l y a f t e r t h e f i r s t newspaper i s l o a d e d i n 
the c a r , 
meaning t h a t t h e e x c l u s i o n does n o t a p p l y w h i l e t h e 
c a r i s 
en r o u t e s o l e l y t o p i c k up newspapers from t h e vendor. 
I would be 
i n c l i n e d t o a d i f f e r e n t answer t o t h i s second 
q u e s t i o n , namely, t h a t t h e "use o f [a] motor v e h i c l e t o c a r r y 
p e r s o n s o r p r o p e r t y f o r 
a f e e " 
i n c l u d e s t h e d e d i c a t e d use o f 
the v e h i c l e w h i l e on t h e 
way t o p i c k up t h e p e r s o n o r p r o p e r t y 
and on t h e way back from d e l i v e r i n g t h e p e r s o n o r p r o p e r t y , 
assuming o f c o u r s e no d e t o u r f o r 
p e r s o n a l o r o t h e r 
r e a s o n s .
5 
5Would a t a x i o r l i m o u s i n e 
d r i v e r be deemed n o t t o be 
engaged i n 
t h e 
use o f h i s 
c a r 
t o c a r r y p e r s o n s o r p r o p e r t y f o r 
a fee i f 
he has an a c c i d e n t 
w h i l e on t h e way t o p i c k up a 
p a s s e n g e r o r t o r e t u r n t o t h e company garage a f t e r d e l i v e r i n g 
26 
1101332 
The p r o s p e c t t h a t I would i n t e r p r e t t h e c o n t r a c t language 
i n 
one way, w h i l e 
o t h e r members o f t h i s 
C o u r t choose t o 
i n t e r p r e t i t 
i n a d i f f e r e n t way, does n o t mean t h e second 
q u e s t i o n i s 
any more amenable t o c e r t i f i e d - q u e s t i o n t r e a t m e n t 
than t h e f i r s t 
q u e s t i o n , 
however. 
The f a c t t h a t any two 
judges might i n t e r p r e t o r a p p l y t h e same c o n t r a c t 
language 
d i f f e r e n t l y does n o t change t h e f a c t t h a t t h a t i s 
what t h e y 
are d o i n g , i n t e r p r e t i n g c o n t r a c t language and then a p p l y i n g i t 
t o t h e f a c t s b e f o r e them; t h e y a r e n o t d e c i d i n g 
u n r e s o l v e d 
q u e s t i o n s o f S t a t e law. I note i n t h i s r e g a r d what t h e main 
o p i n i o n 
i t s e l f s t a t e s a t t h e o u t s e t o f i t s d i s c u s s i o n o f 
t h e 
second 
q u e s t i o n : 
"Alabama law c o n c e r n i n g 
e x c l u s i o n s 
from 
coverage i n 
an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i s 
w e l l s e t t l e d . " 
So. 3d 
a t 
; see a l s o 
So. 3d a t 
(Shaw, J . , 
d i s s e n t i n g ) ( t o same 
e f f e c t ) . 
Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , I r e s p e c t f u l l y d e c l i n e t o answer 
e i t h e r t h e f i r s t o r second q u e s t i o n 
p r e s e n t e d . 
The main 
o p i n i o n 
s t a t e s 
t h a t 
" [ w ] h e t h e r a 
s p e c i f i c 
c a r r y - f o r - a - f e e 
e x c l u s i o n can be a p p l i e d t o a s p e c i f i c i n s u r e d ... i s 
a f a c t -
d r i v e n d e t e r m i n a t i o n , " 
So. 3d a t 
, which we s h o u l d n o t 
be 
the l a s t p a s s e n g e r o f t h e day? 
27 
1101332 
making. Because I b e l i e v e we are making t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n 
t h i s case, I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t . 
28 
1101332 
SHAW, J u s t i c e 
( d i s s e n t i n g ) . 
I 
agree 
w i t h 
J u s t i c e 
Murdock's 
w r i t i n g , 
a l t h o u g h 
I 
e x p r e s s no 
o p i n i o n 
as 
t o 
the 
p r o p e r 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 
of 
the 
p o l i c y language a t i s s u e i n t h i s case. 
I note t h a t t h i s C o u r t 
has 
r e c e n t l y 
s t a t e d : 
"Rule 18, 
A l a . 
R. 
App. 
P., 
p r o v i d e s t h a t 
t h i s 
C o u r t may 
answer q u e s t i o n s from f e d e r a l c o u r t s o n l y 
where 
'there 
are 
no 
c l e a r 
c o n t r o l l i n g p r e c e d e n t s ' 
and 
the answer t o the q u e s t i o n i s ' d e t e r m i n a t i v e 
of 
s a i d cause.' 
C o n s t r u i n g an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y t r e a d s 
no 
new 
ground under Alabama 
law, 
and 
p r e c e d e n t 
d e t e r m i n a t i v e of such an 
a n a l y s i s 
i s w e l l 
s e t t l e d . 
P u b l i c B l d g . Auth. of H u n t s v i l l e v. 
St 
Paul F i r e & 
S t . P a u l F i r e & 
180 
( A l a . 
2010) 
t r a c t 
does 
not 
M a r i n e 
I n s . 
Co., 
80 
So. 
3d 
171, 
180 
( A l a . 
('[T]he 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 
of 
a 
c o n t r a c t 
does 
p r e s e n t a n o v e l l e g a l i s s u e . 
R a t h e r , the 
r u l e s 
of 
c o n t r a c t 
c o n s t r u c t i o n 
and 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 
are 
w e l l 
e s t a b l i s h e d 
i n Alabama 
' ) . " 
S t e w a r t T i t l e Guar. Co. 
v. S h e l b y R e a l t y H o l d i n g s , LLC, 
83 
So. 
3d 469, 
472 
( A l a . 2011). 
See 
a l s o Heatherwood H o l d i n g s , 
LLC 
v. 
F i r s t Commercial Bank, 61 
So. 
3d 
1012, 
1026 
( A l a . 
2010) 
( d e c l i n i n g 
t o answer 
a 
c e r t i f i e d 
q u e s t i o n where 
" e x i s t i n g 
Alabama law 
i s s u f f i c i e n t t o g u i d e the 
[ c e r t i f y i n g c o u r t ] " ) . 
Wise, J . , c o n c u r s . 
29