Court Opinion

ID: 9673007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:04:18.251426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:19.639056
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
On application for rehearing, appellee, in his brief, argues that in our original opinion we held in effect that the medical coverage provision of the insurance policy was one of indemnity, which, according to appellee, would bring the policy under the governance of Title 28, Chapter 17, of the Code of Alabama, as last amended, that being the chapter that sets out the required format of sickness and accident policies with reference to the placement of exceptions and reductions of indemnity; and appellee argues that the format of the policy sued upon was in violation of the requirements of Sec. 419(5), Tit. 28, of said chapter, wherefore, the subrogation clause was void.
The foregoing proposition was in nowise mentioned or argued in appellee’s original brief.
An application for rehearing on ground not argued or suggested until after our *178judgment was rendered cannot be now considered. Kirkland v. Kirkland, 281 Ala. 42, 198 So.2d 771, and cases therein cited.
The other propositions raised by appellee’s brief were fully argued and carefully considered before the rendition of our opinion on the original opinion. We adhere to the views therein expressed.
Opinion extended. Application for rehearing overruled.