Case Title: Best v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

Citation: 540 So. 2d 1381

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1989-02-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
540 So. 2d 1381 (1989)
William BEST, Jr.
v.
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY.
87-1347.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
February 24, 1989.
R. Wayne Wolfe of Wolfe & Jones, Huntsville, for appellant.
Patrick M. Lamar of Lanier, Ford, Shaver & Payne, Huntsville, for appellee.
MADDOX, Justice.
This case involves an underinsured motorist coverage question, and presents a *1382 conflict of laws question regarding which of two states' laws should apply. The parties do not dispute the facts, which were stipulated in the trial court. These facts are as follows:
Upon consideration of the stipulated facts, the exhibits, and argument of counsel, the trial court determined that Best was "not entitled to recover benefits for underinsured motorist bodily injury damage under the subject policy."
The issue before us is whether the contractual obligations of the parties are governed by the subject policy, which was issued in South Carolina, or by the laws of the State of Alabama.
Insofar as we can determine, there are only two circumstances under which Best would be entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits under the subject policy. The first would be if Best had purchased underinsured motorist coverage. The second would be if the policy contains language calling for application of Alabama law pertaining to underinsured motorist coverage.
Because both parties agree that Best has no underinsured motorist coverage under the policy, it is necessary for us to determine only whether the second possible situation exists.
Best rests his argument that the subject policy creates underinsured motorist coverage upon the following clause contained therein:
Best argues that this clause incorporates every provision of the Alabama Motor Vehicle Safety-Responsibility Act into the contract. We disagree.
In South Carolina, where the contract was executed, there is a distinction between uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. Uninsured motorist coverage is mandatory, while underinsured motorist coverage is optional. In short, underinsured motorist coverage must be offered, but the prospective insured has the prerogative of rejecting such coverage. See S.C.Code Ann., § 56-9-830 (1976) and § 56-9-831 (Supp.1986).
Alabama, on the other hand, makes no distinction between uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. The two are looked upon as one and the same. Ala. Code 1975, § 32-7-23(b)(4) (Supp.1988). Furthermore, Alabama is not a compulsory insurance state. Neither residents nor non-residents are required to have insurance *1383 either to obtain a driver's license or to secure vehicle registration or to travel through the state. Mooradian v. Canal Insurance Co., 272 Ala. 373, 130 So. 2d 915 (1961). If, however, a motor vehicle liability policy is issued in this state, the provisions of the following section are mandatory:
Ala.Code 1975, § 32-7-23(a) (Supp.1988).
As aptly stated in State Farm Auto. Insurance Co. v. Baldwin, 470 So. 2d 1230 (Ala.1985):
470 So. 2d  at 1233.
Although insurance policies containing ambiguities are to be construed in favor of the insured, it is imperative that the courts enforce unambiguous policies as written. Johnson v. Allstate Insurance Co., 505 So. 2d 362 (Ala.1987); Newman v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 456 So. 2d 40 (Ala.1984).
We are persuaded that the facts do not support Best's argument that the Alabama Motor Vehicle Safety-Responsibility Act governs the contractual obligations of the parties under the insurance issued by Auto-Owners to William Best, Jr. He voluntarily elected not to obtain underinsured motorist coverage in South Carolina and may not now under his policy receive such coverage in this state, which has no compulsory insurance requirements.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and ALMON, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.