Commercial Standard Insurance v. Potete

Supreme Court of Alabama

Commercial Standard Insurance v. Potete

409 So. 2d 429, 1981 Ala. LEXIS 3935

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 11, 1981

Docket80-668

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 409 So. 2d 429 (Commercial Standard Insurance v. Potete) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commercial Standard Insurance v. Potete, 409 So. 2d 429, 1981 Ala. LEXIS 3935 (Ala. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari because this is a case of first impression in this Court. The Court of Civil Appeals correctly held in Insurance Company of North America v. Thomas, 337 So.2d 365 (Ala.Civ.App.1976), that all motor vehicle liability insurance policies issued in this state would be construed as providing minimum uninsured motorist coverage mandated by § 32-7-23, Code 1975, unless a written agreement rejecting such coverage on the part of the named insured was shown.

The trial court in this case construed the policy to provide such coverage. There was no written rejection offered in evidence. The question, then, is whether the trial court was justified in finding that [430]*430the insured had not rejected uninsured motorist coverage in writing. We have reviewed the record and are clear to the conclusion that the trial court had evidence before it from which it could find that no written rejection had been executed by the insured. To be sure, there was contrary evidence, but the trier of the fact was not bound to believe it. In this case, like all others where the trial judge is charged with making a determination of an issue of fact, he is free to make that determination, taking into account the probable bias of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, and may in doing so reject some evidence in favor of other evidence, and an appellate court must accept his determination unless clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust. Tanner v. Thompson, 376 So.2d 697 (Ala.1979).

The Court of Civil Appeals, 409 So.2d 426, reversed the trial court’s judgment. Because the issue before the Court of Civil Appeals was purely a factual one and because there was evidence to support its finding, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Justices concur, except TOR-BERT, C. J., who dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari because this is a case of first impression in this Court. The Court of Civil Appeals correctly held in Insurance Company of North America v. Thomas, 337 So.2d 365 (Ala.Civ.App.1976), that all motor vehicle liability insurance policies issued in this state would be construed as providing minimum uninsured motorist coverage mandated by § 32-7-23, Code 1975, unless a written agreement rejecting such coverage on the part of the named insured was shown.

The trial court in this case construed the policy to provide such coverage. There was no written rejection offered in evidence. The question, then, is whether the trial court was justified in finding that [430]*430the insured had not rejected uninsured motorist coverage in writing. We have reviewed the record and are clear to the conclusion that the trial court had evidence before it from which it could find that no written rejection had been executed by the insured. To be sure, there was contrary evidence, but the trier of the fact was not bound to believe it. In this case, like all others where the trial judge is charged with making a determination of an issue of fact, he is free to make that determination, taking into account the probable bias of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, and may in doing so reject some evidence in favor of other evidence, and an appellate court must accept his determination unless clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust. Tanner v. Thompson, 376 So.2d 697 (Ala.1979).

The Court of Civil Appeals, 409 So.2d 426, reversed the trial court’s judgment. Because the issue before the Court of Civil Appeals was purely a factual one and because there was evidence to support its finding, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Justices concur, except TOR-BERT, C. J., who dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 So. 2d 429, 1981 Ala. LEXIS 3935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commercial-standard-insurance-v-potete-ala-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack