Title: Mitchell v. Vann
Citation: 174 So. 2d 501
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: February 18, 1965

174 So. 2d 501 (1965)
R. C. MITCHELL
v.
Jerry Franklin VANN.
4 Div. 154.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
February 18, 1965.
Rehearing Denied April 22, 1965.
J. Hubert Farmer, Dothan, for appellant.
Lee &amp; McInish, Dothan, for appellee.
COLEMAN, Justice.
Plaintiff appeals from judgment for defendant in action for personal injury allegedly sustained by plaintiff as the proximate result of the negligence of defendant in operating an automobile so as to cause it to run into the plaintiff.
Plaintiff assigns as error the action of the court in denying plaintiff's motion that the court qualify the prospective jurors "as to whether any of the jurors is a stockholder, officer or agent, or employee of the Dixie Auto Insurance Company, of Anniston, *502 Alabama." Insurer will be referred to as Dixie.
Overruling the ground of the motion for new trial which raises the same point is also argued as error.
Plaintiff stated to the court that at the time of the injury sued for, plaintiff had in full force and effect an insurance policy with Dixie, under the terms of which policy the insurer would be liable to pay "to the plaintiff on any judgment of any damages caused by the defendant in this case at the time of the collision, not exceeding $5,000.00 . . . ." Plaintiff stated to the court that defendant did not carry liability insurance at the time of collision. On the hearing of the motion for new trial, it was stipulated that defendant had no liability insurance at the time of the alleged accident.
On hearing the motion for new trial, the court overruled defendant's objection to a question propounded to plaintiff, and said:
The policy contains the following provisions:
"In Consideration of the payment of the premium for this endorsement, the company agrees with the named insured subject to the limits of liability, exclusions, conditions and other terms of this endorsement and to the applicable terms of the policy:
"1. Damages for Bodily Injury Caused by Uninsured Automobiles: To pay all sums which the insured or his legal representative shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death resulting therefrom, hereinafter called `bodily injury', sustained by the insured' caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured automobile; provided, for the purposes of this endorsement, determination as to whether the insured or such representative is legally entitled to recover such damages, and if so the amount thereof, shall be made by agreement between the insured or such representative and the company or, if they fail to agree, by arbitration.
". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"This endorsement does not apply:
"(a) to bodily injury to an insured, or care or loss of services recoverable by an insured, with respect to which such insured, his legal representative or any person entitled to payment under this endorsement shall, without written consent of the company, make any settlement with or prosecute to judgment any action against any person or organization who may be legally liable therefor;
". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"6. Arbitration: If any person making claim hereunder and the company do not agree that such person is legally entitled to recover damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile because of bodily injury to the insured, or do not agree as to the amount of payment which may be owing under this endorsement, then, upon written demand by either, the matter or matters upon which such person and the company do not agree shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Such person and the company each agree to consider itself bound and to be bound by any award made by the arbitrators pursuant to this endorsement.
"7. Trust Agreement: In the event of payment to any person under this endorsement:
". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."
Defendant cites Hudson v. Stripling, 261 Ala. 196, 73 So. 2d 514, where this court said:
See also: Citizens' Light, Heat &amp; Power Co. v. Lee, 182 Ala. 561, 62 So. 199; Vredenburgh Saw Mill Co. v. Black, 251 Ala. 302, 37 So. 2d 212; Code 1940, Title 30, § 55, as amended by Act No. 260, 1955 Acts, page 605.
Underlying this rule seems to be the ancient principle that "A man cannot, under the law, be a judge or a juror in his own case. * * *" Citizens' Light, Heat &amp; Power Co. v. Lee, 182 Ala. 561, 577, 62 So. 199, 205.
Voir dire examination of jurors seems to be necessary to allow parties to ascertain whether prospective jurors be disqualified or subject to challenge.
It cannot be doubted that the law demands that jurors who administer justice in its courts should be free from bias or prejudice. They should be impartial and indifferent to the result of the suit, save as the evidence and the law direct. Citizens' Light, Heat &amp; Power Co. v. Lee, supra, at page 577, 62 So. 199.
As we understand defendant's brief, he argues that the inquiry moved for by plaintiff was properly denied for four reasons, to wit:
1. The policy was issued to plaintiff and not to defendant.
2. Subdivision 12 of § 55, Title 30, Code 1940, as amended, allows as ground for challenge that any juror is officer, etc. of "an insurance company indemnifying any party to the suit against liability," and the policy issued here by Dixie did not indemnify any party to this suit.
3. The policy provided for arbitration and was merely a contract between plaintiff and Dixie in which defendant was not interested.
4. Not only must plaintiff submit his claim against Dixie to arbitration, but Dixie shall have all rights against defendant which plaintiff had against defendant.
*505 The reason for disqualifying a juror who is stockholder, etc., in an insurance company, does not depend, as we see it, on whether the policy was issued to plaintiff or defendant. The juror is disqualified because he is interested in the company and the company stands to gain or lose as a result of the verdict.
Subdivision 12 of § 55, Title 30, supra, as amended, recites:
"Section 55. It is a good ground for challenge by either party:
". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subdivision 12 provides, that it is good ground for challenge "that the juror is an officer . . . of . . . an insurance company indemnifying any party. . . or being otherwise financially interested in the result of the suit." Moreover:
Is Dixie, under the uninsured motorist clause, financially interested in the result of this suit?
This coverage is "a new type of automobile insurance which came into being as the result of public concern over the increasingly important problems arising from injuries inflicted by negligent motorists who are uninsured and financially irresponsible." 79 A.L.R.2d 1252.
In Boughton v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, (1960, Okl.), 354 P.2d 1085, 79 A.L.R.2d 1245, 1254,
". . . The insured, after securing a judgment against an uninsured motorist after notice to but without the consent of the insurer, refused to arbitrate and sued on the policy. Pointing out that Oklahoma had no arbitration statute and the common law governed, and that the policy provided for the payment of all sums which the insured was legally entitled to recover whereas the arbitration clause sought to limit the amount to the damages agreed upon or determined by arbitration, the court reversed a judgment for the insurer on demurrer, and held that the arbitration provision was contrary to public policy and unenforceable because it was a stipulation depriving the courts of jurisdiction as to future controversies, and that the `no action' clause was void under a statute which nullified agreements restricting parties from enforcing contractual rights by the usual legal proceedings and ordinary tribunals. Rejecting the insurer's contention that all parts of the insuring agreement were thereby voided, the court said the essential part of the contract for which the consideration was paid was insurance protecting against uninsured motorists, not procedure for determining liability, and the insurer was charged with knowledge that such policy provisions were unenforceable and void and could not deny liability by reason thereof. The court also held that the insurer could not relitigate the questions of the liability of the uninsured motorist or the *506 amount of the insured's damages and that the judgment in the action against the uninsured motorist was conclusive of the issues therein determined, subject to any defenses the insurer might have against it, since it had notice of and a full opportunity to participate in that action."
We are not to be understood as deciding, at this time, whether Dixie can invoke the arbitration provisions of its policy or whether a judgment for plaintiff against defendant, in the instant case, would be conclusive also against Dixie.
We do hold that Dixie is interested in the result of the instant suit, although: (1) the policy was issued to plaintiff and not to defendant; (2) the policy does not indemnify defendant or any party to this suit; (3) whether the arbitration provisions of the policy be effective or not; and (4) although Dixie, on payment to plaintiff of a recovery against defendant, may be subrogated to plaintiff's rights against defendant.
We hold this because a recovery by plaintiff against defendant, who was admittedly uninsured, can result in a recovery by plaintiff against Dixie. Dixie agreed to pay "all sums which the insured. . . shall be legally entitled to recover . . . from the owner or operator . . . of the uninsured automobile."
Defendant's automobile was uninsured. If plaintiff is legally entitled to recover from defendant, Dixie has promised to pay. We see nothing here to relieve Dixie from the result of its promise. If plaintiff wins a verdict against defendant, then we see no reason why Dixie should not pay, and if Dixie is liable to pay, Dixie is interested in the result of the suit.
Even if the arbitration provisions should be effective, which we do not decide, we see no reason to suppose that Dixie would, by arbitration, escape a lawfully imposed obligation. It would appear appropriate to presume that the arbitrators would do what is right.
Being of opinion that Dixie is interested in the result of this suit, we are of opinion that plaintiff was entitled to ascertain whether the jurors were stockholders, etc., of Dixie, and that the court erred in refusing to so inquire on voir dire.
Reversed and remanded.
LAWSON, GOODWYN and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
COLEMAN, Justice.
Defendant earnestly insists that our decision in this case is wrong and respectfully asks that we answer questions, or arguments, posed in brief which defendant filed in support of application for rehearing.
First, defendant says:
We do not clearly understand how an action in name of plaintiff could be maintained against defendant if plaintiff had agreed to a settlement with defendant, or how either plaintiff or insurer would be interested in bringing an action against defendant if a settlement had been made, because we understand the expression, "made a settlement," to mean that the parties agreed on the amount of damage and that defendant paid to plaintiff the agreed amount. Defendant may intend to suppose *507 that defendant had not paid the agreed amount.
Second, defendant says:
Third, defendant says:
We note in passing that Subdivision 12 of § 55, Title 30, refers to "an insurance company" interested, etc., and that the statute gives the right of challenge to "either party."
As defendant says, his three contentions rest on supposed factual situations. We think it sufficient answer to say that the transcript does not show that any of the three supposed situations existed in this case.
Defendant argues further that even if the court erred in refusing to inquire whether any juror was interested in Dixie, such error, for aught that appears, would be without injury.
We take this to mean that defendant is saying that, in order to justify a reversal for the error in refusing to qualify jurors as to their connection with Dixie, plaintiff should be required to show that one of the veniremen was an officer, stockholder, or employee of Dixie. It may be that defendant is arguing that plaintiff should further show that one of the jurors who tried the case was such an officer, stockholder, or employee.
*508 We are of opinion that plaintiff should not be required to carry such a burden. In Duke v. Gaines, 224 Ala. 519, 522, 140 So. 600, 602, in holding that plaintiff had a right to examine jurors, this court said:
Neither do we think plaintiff can be deprived of the right conferred by the statute; § 8662 of Code 1923, § 52, Title 30, Code 1940; by holding denial of such right to be without injury unless plaintiff assumes and carries the burden of showing affirmatively that one or more of the veniremen was then an officer, stockholder, or employee of an interested insurer.
In refusing to hold harmless the error of requiring a party to strike from a list of 28 jurors when the law provided for 24, this court said:
We are of opinion that the foregoing quotations apply to this case and that we should adhere to our original ruling.
Opinion extended.
Application overruled.
LAWSON, GOODWYN and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.