 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Continental National Indemnity Co. v. Fields10/21/2005
Continental National Indemnity Company and Progressive Specialty Insurance Company appeal by permission, pursuant to Rule 5, Ala.R.App.P., from the denial of a motion for a summary judgment they filed in an action brought by Betty Fields, as personal representative of the estate of Lisa Gale Tamms, deceased, to recover uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM") benefits. We reverse the order denying the summary judgment and remand the case.
Facts
On May 14, 2001, Tamms was injured in an automobile accident when her vehicle was allegedly struck by a vehicle driven by Doyle Coultas, an uninsured motorist. In November 2002, Tamms died from a cause unrelated to the automobile accident. On May 14, 2003, Fields, as personal representative of Tamms's estate, sued Continental and Progressive to recover UM benefits for injuries Tamms sustained in the 2001 accident. Tamms herself did not file an action based on the 2001 accident before she died.
At trial, Continental and Progressive filed a motion for a summary judgment on the ground that Tamms's tort cause of action against the uninsured motorist did not survive her death, and, thus, her estate could not establish that it was "legally entitled to recover" against Coultas as required by Alabama's uninsured-motorist statute, § 32-7-23, Ala. Code 1975, under the rationale of this Court's recent holding in Ex parte Carlton, 867 So. 2d 332 (Ala. 2003). The trial court denied Continental and Progressive's motion for a summary judgment and certified the denial of the motion for an interlocutory appeal. This Court granted the petition for permission to appeal.
Standard of Review
An order granting or denying a summary judgment is reviewed de novo, applying the same standard as the trial court applied. American Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Underwood, 886 So. 2d 807, 811 (Ala. 2004). In addition, " his court reviews de novo a trial court's interpretation of a statute, because only a question of law is presented." Scott Bridge Co. v. Wright, 883 So. 2d 1221, 1223 (Ala. 2003). Where, as here, the facts of a case are essentially undisputed, this Court must determine whether the trial court misapplied the law to the undisputed facts, applying a de novo standard of review. Carter v. City of Haleyville, 669 So. 2d 812, 815 (Ala. 1995). Here, in reviewing the denial of a summary judgment when the facts are undisputed, we review de novo the trial court's interpretation of statutory language and our previous caselaw on a controlling question of law.
Issue
The controlling question of law before this Court, as stated by the circuit court in its Rule 5(a), Ala.R.App.P., certification, is as follows:
"Whether Ala. Code [1975,] § 6-5-462[,] and the interpretation by the Supreme Court of Alabama in Ex parte Carlton, 867 So. 2d 332 (Ala. 2003)[,] of the requirement in Ala. Code [1975,] § 32-7-23(a)[,] that persons insured thereunder be 'legally entitled to recover damages' bar the Estate of a deceased from maintaining an action for uninsured motorists (UM) benefits against uninsured motorists carriers when the decedent filed no personal injury action against the alleged tortfeasor prior to her death from an unrelated cause."
We hold that Fields, as personal representative of Tamms's estate, cannot recover UM benefits under the Continental policy or the Progressive policy because she cannot establish that the estate is "legally entitled to recover damages" against the uninsured motorist, a condition precedent to the recovery of UM benefits under Alabama's uninsured-motorist statute.
Analysis
In answering the controlling question of law presented b
Page 1 2 3 4 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|