Title: Bright v. State Farm Ins. Co.
Citation: 767 So. 2d 1111
Docket Number: 1980238
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: March 31, 2000

767 So. 2d 1111 (2000)
Jesse BRIGHT
v.
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY.
1980238.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
March 31, 2000.
*1112 Charles R. Crowder and Annesley H. DeGaris of Cory, Watson, Crowder &amp; De-Garis, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant.
Daniel S. Wolter of Gaines, Wolter &amp; Kinney, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
This case involves "stacking" of underinsured motorist benefits. Jesse Bright brought a declaratory judgment action (CV-96-610), pursuant to § 6-6-220 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, against State Farm Insurance Company, seeking a declaration that he is entitled to stack underinsured motorist benefits from four single vehicle policies issued to Cope Systems, Inc. d/b/a/ Ace Pest Control and on a fleet policy issued to Guaranty Pest Control, all of which were issued by State Farm. Bright was injured in an automobile accident while he was driving a vehicle owned by Cope Systems, Inc. d/b/a/ Ace Pest Control. The Ace vehicle was struck by a City of Bessemer garbage truck. As a result of the accident, Bright was totally disabled. Bright then filed a second action (CV-97-150) seeking underinsured motorist benefits under the same State Farm policies that are the subject of the declaratory judgment action. State Farm filed a motion to consolidate; the circuit court did not enter a ruling on the motion.
Both State Farm and Bright moved for summary judgment, entering a joint stipulation of fact in which it was agreed that at the time of the accident, Bright was an employee of Guaranty and on an assignment for Ace. The trial court entered a judgment, finding that Bright was not entitled to stack under the Ace policies or the Guaranty policies because he was not included within any of the categories defined as insureds except as an occupant of the vehicle covered by the policy which had already paid him. The trial judge's order stated in pertinent part:
"I. ACE POLICIES
"A Missouri appellate court facing this issue for the first time noted,
McMurtry v. Aetna Casualty &amp; Surety Company, 845 S.W.2d 700, 702-03 (Mo. App.1993).
"This Court will follow the majority view and hold that employees are not named insureds when the corporation is named as the insured and finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to stack the Ace policies.
"II. GUARANTY POLICY
Bright filed notice of appeal from this judgment.
On March 7, 1995, Bright was driving a 1993 Isuzu owned by Ace Pest Control when the vehicle was involved in an automobile accident with a City of Bessemer garbage truck. Bright ran a full time pest control route with Ace and acted as a "swingman" with Guaranty. At the time of the accident, an employee/employer relationship existed between Bright and Guaranty. At the time of the accident, Bright was performing an assignment for Ace.
Ace and Guaranty had five policies of insurance issued by State Farm that were in effect on the date of the accident:
State Farm paid Bright the $20,000 policy limits for underinsured motorist benefits on the first policy shown above, the 1993 Isuzu that he occupied when the accident occurred.
Bright contends that under § 32-7-23(c), Ala.Code 1975, he is allowed to stack coverage under the policies issued to Ace and Guaranty. Section 32-7-23(c) provides as follows:
The trial judge based his ruling disallowing stacking on the fact that Bright did not occupy any of the other vehicles. Since Bright was not a named insured, the trial judge reasoned that the only way he could fit the definition of "insured" was by his use or occupancy of an insured vehicle, and that Bright was not an occupant of any of the vehicles under which he seeks to stack coverage. Therefore, the trial judge determined that Bright is not entitled to stack those policies.
Bright argues first that an ambiguity was created in the policies at issue, because the policies were issued to a corporation, but contained language referring to individuals. Other jurisdictions have interpreted such policy language and found the policy language to be clear, providing for uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage for occupants of the insured vehicles. Ott v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 936 S.W.2d 165, 166 (Mo.App.1987).
The record reflects that Bright is an injured permissive user of a corporately owned vehicle. The declarations page of all four insurance policies issued by State Farm to Ace Pest Control show "Cope Systems, Inc. d/b/a/ Act Pest Control" as the named insured. The policy issued by State Farm to Guaranty shows "Guaranty Pest Control, Inc." as the named insured.
This Court has issued several decisions regarding the stacking of uninsured motorist benefits in various factual situations. Because Bright is not a named insured on any of the policies issued to Ace and is not a member of any of the categories of insureds stated by the policy except category 4 for the occupants of the particular insured vehicle, he becomes an insured only by his use or occupancy of an insured vehicle. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 359 So. 2d 380 (Ala.Civ.App.1977); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Faught, 558 So. 2d 921 (Ala.1990); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 565 So. 2d 179 (Ala.1990). Here, Bright occupied the 1993 Isuzu and thus is covered under only that one Ace policy. As to the policy issued to Guaranty, there is no policy language that extends the named insured status to persons occupying borrowed vehicles. We agree with the trial court that American Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 643 So. 2d 1350 (Ala.1994), is distinguishable because of different policy language. Thus, the trial court did not err in holding that stacking was unavailable to Bright on the Guaranty policy and the Ace policies on vehicles he did not occupy.
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON, COOK, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
[1]  Each policy defines "your car" as "the car or the vehicle described on the declarations page."