Case Title: Allstate Ins. Co. v. Portis

Citation: 472 So. 2d 997

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1985-06-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
472 So. 2d 997 (1985)
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
Alexander PORTIS and Henry E. Coats, as Administrator of the Estate of John Coats, Deceased.
83-770.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 7, 1985.
Fred W. Killion III and Patricia K. Olney of Reams, Vollmer, Philips, Killion, Brooks & Schell, Mobile, for appellant.
Ronnie E. Keahey, Grove Hill, for appellee Alexander Portis.
William T. Coplin, Jr., Demopolis, for appellee Henry E. Coats, etc.
BEATTY, Justice.
This is an appeal by Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), plaintiff, from a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, Alexander Portis and Henry E. Coats, in Allstate's action for a declaratory judgment. We affirm.
In its action, Allstate sought an interpretation and application of an exclusion contained in a policy of homeowners insurance issued by it to Portis. The exclusion in question states:
Allstate's declaratory judgment action was an outgrowth of a wrongful death action brought by Henry E. Coats, as administrator of the estate of John Coats, against Alexander Portis. In that action, Coats alleged:
In Count Two of his complaint, Coats alleged that John Coats died as the proximate result of the aforesaid injuries. The wrongful death claim has been continued pending the outcome of this appeal.
*998 The case proceeded to trial, with Allstate and Portis moving for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case and at the close of all the evidence. These motions were denied. The defendants did not introduce any evidence. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant and against the plaintiff, Allstate. This appeal followed.
Plaintiff has presented two questions for our consideration on this appeal:
(1) Whether the evidence adduced in the trial established that the insured, Portis, intentionally caused bodily injury to the deceased, John Coats, thereby requiring that the specific exclusion be given effect.
(2) Whether the trial court erred to reversal by refusing to admit into evidence the testimony of the victim's wife, Bertha Coats, since deceased.
Allstate maintains that the evidence at trial established that the insured, Portis, did intentionally shoot the victim, John Coats, and thus that it owed no insurance coverage to Portis under the terms of the above-quoted exclusion. Allstate refers us to a number of exhibits introduced below, consisting of statements made by Portis and testimony by witnesses who interviewed Portis.
This evidence established that Portis and the victim, John Coats, were neighbors who had a continuing dispute concerning the boundary line between their properties. According to Portis, John Coats had threatened Portis's life on occasions prior to the incident in question, and had removed plants, grass, and boundary markers placed upon the boundary by Portis. On the day of their last confrontation, Portis observed John Coats digging up plants Portis had planted the day before. Arming himself with a .32-caliber pistol he kept in his house, Portis walked out to a point near John Coats, who, according to Portis, began to curse and to threaten him. At this point, the parties disagree on the circumstances which led to the shooting of John Coats.
Allstate introduced statements which Portis gave shortly after the shooting. In one of these, made to the Thomasville chief of police, Portis stated:
To a district attorney's deputy and to a district attorney's investigator, Portis stated:
Portis made substantially the same statement to Doug Painter, a representative of Allstate. Each of these persons to whom Portis had given these statements testified as a witness and verified those versions of the incident as given to them by Portis.
*999 Portis himself also testified as a witness in the declaratory judgment action. He related the difficulties he had experienced with John Coats over the boundary line, explained his reason for arming himself, and described the altercation up to the point just prior to the shooting:
The decision of this Court in Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 454 So. 2d 921 (Ala.1984), leads to a result contrary to that sought by Allstate here. In that case, the exclusion was for "bodily injury or property damage which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured." In that case, two brothers, William and Wayne Dyer, had been drinking one evening and began arguing about a water ski William had bought from Wayne. William wanted his money back. The money was offered, but William said he would wait until the next morning when they were both sober. Wayne then *1000 pulled a revolver, pointed it at his brother, and fired, fatally wounding him.
In reciting the evidence of that case, this Court noted at 926:
Recognizing that the question of whether an injury which the insured inflicts upon another is "expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured" is a question of fact for the judge or jury, this Court proceeded in Dyer to analyze our previous decisions to determine whether that principle was to be measured by an objective or a subjective standard, and concluded:
Applying this principle, it is clear that the evidence of Portis and the evidence of the other witnesses conflicted. According to Portis's testimony, the victim had a "white pearl handled gun" in his belt, and as Portis backed away in the midst of thorns and stickers, falling backwards, the gun he was holding went off. Thus, he claimed, his gun went off accidentally. The other witnesses testified that Portis had stated to them that he had fired intentionally, albeit in self-defense. Clearly, this conflict in the evidence made an issue for the jury on Portis's intent to cause injury.
We need not reach the question concerning the refusal to admit the testimony of Bertha Coats. Allstate made no offer of proof; hence, we are not informed of the proposed testimony, nor can we ascertain its purpose. 2 Ala.Digest Appeal & Error, Key 205.
Let the judgment be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, JONES and SHORES, JJ., concur.