Opinion ID: 1722469
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Div. 932-A

Text: The single question raised in this cross-appeal is: Does the homeowners policy which insured Ed Hodges, his wife and his daughter provide any coverage for the accident in which Mayfield was injured? The policy contained the following exclusion, which, if applicable, would not provide coverage: Water craft owned by or rented to an Insured, while away from the premises, if with inboard motor power exceeding 50 horsepower. The boat did have an inboard motor in excess of 50 horsepower. So the dispute is whether the boat was owned by an insured and whether it was away from the premises at the time of the accident. Cross-appellants contend that the boat was owned by Ed Hodges even though title to it was in Auto Electric. This argument is based upon the fact that Hodges owned 77 per cent of Auto Electric and he was, in fact, the owner of the boat. The evidence before the trial court showed that Auto Electric bought the boat, registered it, mortgaged it, demonstrated it, held it in inventory for sale, and advertised it for sale. The fact that Hodges owned 77 per cent of the stock of Auto Electric does not make him the alter ego of the corporation. The insurance company prepared the policy and used the word owned. Courts will construe a contract of insurance strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured. 12 Ala.Dig., Insurance. We have also held that words of the policy must be given their ordinary and generally understood meaning, and strained or unusual construction should not be indulged in favor of either insurer or insured. Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 272 Ala. 357, 131 So.2d 182. It is sufficient to say that we think the trial court did not err in holding that the boat was owned by Auto Electric and not by Hodges. Saint Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Heflin, D.C., 137 F.Supp. 520; Farley v. American Auto Ins. Co., 137 W.Va. 455, 72 S.E.2d 520, 34 A.L.R.2d 933; Fleckenstein v. Citizens' Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 326 Mich. 591, 40 N.W.2d 733. Having decided the question of the owner of the boat, it is not necessary that we decide the question of whether it was away from the premises because that requirement was in the conjunctive with the requirement of ownership. No reversible error appears in the cross-appeal aspect of the case. The decree of the trial court relating to medical payments is modified by eliminating Item 5 of the final decree, but is affirmed as to all other items in cases 6 Div. 932 and 6 Div. 932-A. Modified and affirmed. LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.