Title: Blanton v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co.
Citation: 434 So. 2d 773
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 27, 1983

434 So. 2d 773 (1983)
Garilyn BLANTON
v.
LIBERTY NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corp.
82-369.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 27, 1983.
Rehearing Denied July 1, 1983.
*774 Robert F. Clark, Mobile, for appellant.
Joseph C. Sullivan, Sr. and Joseph C. Sullivan, Jr., Mobile, for appellee.
FAULKNER, Justice.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of Liberty National Life Insurance Company. We reverse and remand.
On February 26, 1980, Charles D. Blanton, age 28, an agent for Liberty National, applied to Liberty National for $25,000 Estate Whole Life Insurance with accidental death benefits, and waiver of premium. The application was submitted to the company on a non-medical basis. With it Blanton paid one-twelfth of the annual premium $6.44. He was given a receipt for temporary insurance.
The conditions shown on the receipt under which temporary insurance for a limited amount may become effective prior to policy delivery are:
On March 6, 1980, the Company, from its Birmingham office, mailed an application status letter to Blanton, addressed to his Mobile office. The status letter stated that a medical examination was required of Blanton "due to amount." There is no evidence to show whether Blanton ever received the letter. The evidence shows that the letter was mailed from Birmingham on March 6, and that in the normal course of mail delivery the letter should have reached Mobile the following day, March 7. In the afternoon of March 7, Blanton was killed in an automobile accident.
A claim for insurance proceeds filed by the young widow of Blanton was denied by the Company because Blanton had not taken a physical examination before his death. A law suit filed by the widow to collect the proceeds, coupled with a bad faith claim against the Company followed. The Company's summary judgment motion, supported by deposition of a Company executive and an affidavit by the Mobile office manager, was granted by the trial court. The trial judge was apparently persuaded to grant the motion by this language appearing in the Company's Mobile office manager's affidavit
The $50,000 limit given in the manager's affidavit may either be a Company rule not in the record or a condition not appearing in the record. The conditions in the receipt (set out above) do not refer to any limit *776 described by the manager. Condition B(1) specifically provides that temporary insurance is limited to the lesser of insurance applied for or $100,000.00 if the proposed insured is between ages of 20 and 50 inclusiveif Condition A(1), (2), (3) have been met.
Condition A(2) provides for "all required medical examination ... completed within 60 days from the date of part one of the application." The pertinent item in part one of the application is Item 7. It asks this:
The amount in force shown in Item 7 is $25,000.00. The "Income Disability" block is left blank.
The net result of "insurance in force or applied for" did not exceed $50,000.00. It is to be noted that the affidavit used the words "in force or applied for"not "in force plus the amount applied for." We do not find any language in either the application or the receipt for temporary insurance to uphold the manager's affidavit. Indeed, the opposite is shown in the Declaration. Item 3 of the Declaration provides that, "The Company will require a medical examination of the Proposed Insured if the amount of insurance applied for exceeds $30,000 for a Proposed Insured whose age nearest birthday on date of this application is 0-30 years inclusive...." Blanton, born March 4, 1952, was 28 years old when he filed his applicationthe amount of insurance applied for was $25,000.00.
We opine that there is insufficient evidence to support a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56(c), ARCP. Moreover, the Committee Comments to that rule provide that an affidavit which can be considered on motion for summary judgment may only set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence. A court may not consider statements in affidavits based on hearsay, or otherwise inadmissible. Some facts in the manager's affidavit appear to be inadmissible. We pretermit any discussion of the bad faith claim. Additionally, we do not discuss the trial judge's order denying Blanton's motion for summary judgment on count one of the complaint. An order denying a motion for summary judgment is not appealable.
The order granting the summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ALMON, EMBRY, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.