GEICO Indemn. Co. v. Bell, [Ms. 2150745, Mar. 10, 2017] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). Citing Watts v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 423 So. 2d 171 (Ala. 1982), the Court of Civil Appeals holds “that a vehicle which is insured under a policy of insurance ‘does not become uninsured because liability coverage may not be available to a particular individual.’” Ms. *10. Citing Ex parte O’Hare, 432 So. 2d 1300 (Ala. 1983) the court holds a “motor vehicle cannot be both insured and uninsured in the same policy.” Ms. *11. Thus, “when the insurance carrier of the vehicle involved in an accident denied liability coverage to an individual because of an applicable liability exclusion or exclusionary definition, that denial does not trigger the availability of uninsured motorist coverage to that individual under the same policy.” Ms. *11, quoting Hall v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 514 So. 2d 853, 855 (Ala. 1987). Accordingly, the judgment of the Lowndes Circuit Court finding, after a jury trial, that wrongful death benefits were owed under GEICO’s UIM coverage was due to be reversed with instructions to enter a judgment in favor of GEICO.
Uninsured Motorist Coverage & Uninsured Vehicle Exclusion - Geico Indemn. Co. v. Bell
Categories
