American Alternative Insurance v. Anthony Williams

Eighth Circuit

American Alternative Insurance v. Anthony Williams

632 F. App'x 308

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 29, 2016

Docket15-2262

StatusUnpublished

This text of 632 F. App'x 308 (American Alternative Insurance v. Anthony Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Alternative Insurance v. Anthony Williams, 632 F. App'x 308 (8th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

While paramedic Anthony Williams was riding as a passenger in his employer’s ambulance, he was injured in a collision with a city bus owned by Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) and driven by Thurman Scott. Mr. Williams obtained a *309 judgment against CATA and Scott in the amount of $475,000. After CATA paid its liability limits of $25,000, Mr. Williams sought underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from American Alternative' Insurance Corporation (AAIC), the insurer for his employer, ambulance owner Metropolitan Emergency Medical Services. AAIC in turn filed this diversity action seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not liable because the insurance policy excluded from the definition of an “underinsured motor vehicle” one owned by a governmental unit or agency such as CATA. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court 1 entered judgment in favor of AAIC. Mr. Williams appeals arguing, as he did below, that the relevant policy clause excluding coverage is void as against public policy; alternatively, he argues that the clause, was not negotiated.

Following careful review, see Martin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 183 F.3d 770, 772 (8th Cir.1999) (applying substantive law of forum state in diversity action), we agree with the district court that, under Arkansas law, an insurer issuing a commercial automobile liability policy is not required to offer UIM coverage, see Monday v. Canal Ins. Co., 348 Ark. 435, 73 S.W.3d 594, 597-99 (2002) (construing plain language of Ark.Code Ann. § 23-89-209(a)(1) to require insurers to offer UIM coverage only when issuing “private passenger automobile liability insurance” policies covering personal or private vehicles). We also agree with the court that AAIC’s exclusion of government-owned vehicles from UIM coverage in the policy at issue is not void as against public policy. See Couch v. Farmers Ins. Co., 375 Ark, 255, 289 S.W.3d 909, 916 (2008) (courts will not find insurance coverage exclusions void as against public policy unless legislature specifically prohibited exclusion). Finally, Mr. Williams’s argument that the exclusion clause was not negotiated is not a basis, for reversal.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

While paramedic Anthony Williams was riding as a passenger in his employer’s ambulance, he was injured in a collision with a city bus owned by Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) and driven by Thurman Scott. Mr. Williams obtained a *309 judgment against CATA and Scott in the amount of $475,000. After CATA paid its liability limits of $25,000, Mr. Williams sought underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from American Alternative' Insurance Corporation (AAIC), the insurer for his employer, ambulance owner Metropolitan Emergency Medical Services. AAIC in turn filed this diversity action seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not liable because the insurance policy excluded from the definition of an “underinsured motor vehicle” one owned by a governmental unit or agency such as CATA. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court 1 entered judgment in favor of AAIC. Mr. Williams appeals arguing, as he did below, that the relevant policy clause excluding coverage is void as against public policy; alternatively, he argues that the clause, was not negotiated.

Following careful review, see Martin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 183 F.3d 770, 772 (8th Cir.1999) (applying substantive law of forum state in diversity action), we agree with the district court that, under Arkansas law, an insurer issuing a commercial automobile liability policy is not required to offer UIM coverage, see Monday v. Canal Ins. Co., 348 Ark. 435, 73 S.W.3d 594, 597-99 (2002) (construing plain language of Ark.Code Ann. § 23-89-209(a)(1) to require insurers to offer UIM coverage only when issuing “private passenger automobile liability insurance” policies covering personal or private vehicles). We also agree with the court that AAIC’s exclusion of government-owned vehicles from UIM coverage in the policy at issue is not void as against public policy. See Couch v. Farmers Ins. Co., 375 Ark, 255, 289 S.W.3d 909, 916 (2008) (courts will not find insurance coverage exclusions void as against public policy unless legislature specifically prohibited exclusion). Finally, Mr. Williams’s argument that the exclusion clause was not negotiated is not a basis, for reversal.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 F. App'x 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-alternative-insurance-v-anthony-williams-ca8-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack