Case Title: Walter George Austin and Charlene Austin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: CV-05-1511.80). Affirmed. No Opinion.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1100596

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2011-09-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 09/30/2011
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2011
____________________
1100596
____________________
Walter George Austin and Charlene Austin
v.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Appeal from Madison Circuit Court
(CV-05-1511.80)
MAIN, Justice
AFFIRMED.  NO OPINION.
See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.
Malone, C.J., and Woodall, Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Shaw,
and Wise, JJ., concur.  
Murdock, J., dissents.
1100596
2
MURDOCK, Justice (dissenting).
The Court today affirms a decision of the trial court
that relies on this Court's opinion in Nationwide Mutual Fire
Insurance Co. v. Austin, 34 So. 3d 1238 (Ala. 2009), to hold
that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company owes
nothing to its insureds, Walter George Austin and Charlene
Austin, in relation to a judgment obtained by the Austins
against a third-party tortfeasor.  This Court's opinion in
Nationwide concerned the liability of the Austins' primary
insurer, 
Nationwide 
-- 
specifically, 
the 
effect 
on
Nationwide's contractual liability to the Austins of a clause
in its policy providing for a reduction of Nationwide's
obligation to the Austins for uninsured/underinsured-motorist
("UM") coverage, in an amount equal to the amount of any
payments made by Nationwide under a separate medical-payment
clause in the same policy.  As the author of this Court's
opinion in Nationwide, I do not see in it, either expressly or
implicitly, the meaning necessarily drawn from it by the trial
court and essential to the outcome reached by the trial court
and by this Court. 
1100596
3
It is important to take stock of what this Court did and
did not do in Nationwide.  In Nationwide, we concerned
ourselves with, and we addressed only, the measure of
Nationwide's obligation under the UM provision of its policy.
We did not concern ourselves with or address the measure of
the obligation of the Austins' secondary insurer, State Farm,
under the UM provision of its policy.  In Nationwide, we held
that Nationwide's contractual obligation under the terms of
its particular policy had been satisfied.  We did not hold
that the judgment obtained by the Austins against the third-
party tortfeasor had been satisfied.
The contractual terms of State Farm's secondary, or
"excess," policy provides that State Farm's obligation to the
Austins is to be calculated as follows:  an amount equal to
the damages ascertained at trial to be owed by the tortfeasor,
less any amount paid "for such damages" by the tortfeasor or
a third-party insurer standing in the place of the tortfeasor.
Unlike Nationwide's policy, State Farm's policy contains no
setoff for any amount paid for medical expenses --  much less
an amount paid by some other insurer.  In the case of Walter
Austin, the amount ascertained by a jury to be owed by the
1100596
4
tortfeasor was $130,000.  The fact is that, for whatever
reason (the reason not being of any concern for purposes of
State Farm's contract), Nationwide paid only $95,000 against
this particular award.  State Farm's contractual obligation
must be calculated accordingly.  A similar calculation is
required by the State Farm contract as to the amount owed
Charlene Austin.