Title: ALLIANCE INS. CO., INC. v. Reynolds
Citation: 494 So. 2d 609
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: June 27, 1986

494 So. 2d 609 (1986)
ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
v.
Joshua REYNOLDS, et al.
84-1047.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 27, 1986.
Rehearing Denied September 12, 1986.
*610 David E. Allred, of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole &amp; Black, Montgomery, for appellant.
Warren S. Reese, Jr., Montgomery, for appellees.
MADDOX, Justice.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County holding invalid an assault and battery exclusion in the insurance contract entered into by plaintiff Alliance Insurance Company, Inc., and defendants Joshua Reynolds and Alberta V. Williams, d/b/a the Tyjuana Social Club and Paradise Club. The specific question presented is whether the insureds were adequately notified of the change in coverage provided by a substituted policy so as to exclude from coverage under that new policy claims made against them for "assault and battery." We affirm.
The trial court entered the following order:
We begin by noting that the trial court, without a jury, heard ore tenus evidence in this case. Therefore, every presumption will be indulged in favor of the trial court's findings of fact, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are unsupported by credible evidence or are found to be plainly and palpably wrong. Johnson v. Brewington, 435 So. 2d 64 (Ala.1983); Stallworth v. First National Bank of Mobile, 432 So. 2d 1222 (Ala. 1983); Woodard v. City of Decatur, 431 So. 2d 1173 (Ala.1983).
Alliance's primary contention on appeal is that the assault and battery exclusion in its contract with Reynolds and Williams is valid because it did not insure Reynolds and Williams until October 14, 1983, and its policy never included coverage for assault and battery claims. Prior to October 14, 1983, the defendants were insured by the Casualty Indemnity Exchange (Casualty). The original policy with Casualty, which was negotiated in 1978, did include assault and battery coverage; therefore, from 1978 to October 14, 1983, except for a period from October 13, 1981, to October 16, 1982, when Reynolds and Williams did not have any liability insurance at all, the defendants were covered for damage or loss resulting from assault and battery claims.
Defendants contend that because they never received notice that their policy with Alliance did not include coverage for assault and battery claims, when their agent returned the renewal notice to Alliance marked "as is," they assumed that coverage would be the same as that provided by Casualty.
While our research has revealed no Alabama cases directly on point, this Court in National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 231 Ala. 640, 166 So. 24 (1936), held as follows:
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 231 Ala. at 648, 166 So.  at 31.
We are unpersuaded that a different rule should govern where, as here, the present insurer did not negotiate the first insurance policy but the insured had no notice that a new company was handling his insurance. Despite the fact that the defendants' insurance coverage was switched from Casualty to Alliance, defendants did not receive notice that their coverage would be different because of the change in the carrier. Exceptions to coverage must be interpreted as narrowly as possible in order to provide maximum coverage for the insured, and must be construed most strongly against the company that drew the policy and issued it. Westchester *613 Fire Ins. Co. v. Barnett Millworks, Inc., 364 So. 2d 1137 (Ala.1978). We believe the same principle should apply in determining whether an exception is applicable. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the burden fell upon Alliance or its agent to notify defendants or their agent of any changes from the coverage provided by Casualty.
In its brief, Alliance notes that, "The suit policy was applied for in September, 1983, and was issued by Alliance's agent, L.E. Rife Agency, on October 26, 1983." After reviewing the record, we are of the opinion that sufficient evidence was presented at trial from which the trial court could have found that Rife was Alliance's agent and was vested with the power to act for and bind Alliance.
The evidence presented at trial shows that the defendants' agent, Nace Varon, dealt solely with Rife from 1978 onward. It was Rife's responsibility to place the defendants' coverage with the proper company. The only notice that Varon received from Rife suggesting that the policy in 1983 contained different provisions, or even that a different company was handling the defendants' insurance, was contained in the following provision on the renewal slip:
Alliance contends that the underlined sentence above placed defendants on notice that the policy might be different from previous policies. We disagree. Where an exclusion is enlarged, as here, the policyholder must be given more specific notice of that change than was given in this case.
Because neither Alliance nor its agent notified either defendants or their agent of the new assault and battery exclusion, the trial court did not err in finding in favor of defendants. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
ALMON and SHORES, JJ., concur.
TORBERT, C.J., and BEATTY, J., concur in the result.