Insurance provision requiring claimants to present testimony other than their own to prove facts of accident is unenforceable

Law Reporter, Oct 2002

Walker v. GuideOne Specialty Mut. Ins. Co.,__ So. 2d__, No. 1000964,2002 WL 960048 (Ala. May 10, 2002).

The Alabama Supreme Court held an insurance provision obligating claimants to present evidence other than their own to prove the facts of an accident is unenforceable.

Here, Walker was injured while driving when she swerved to avoid an oncoming vehicle that allegedly crossed into her lane. Her husband, the only other witness, was killed. Walker's insurer denied her claim for uninsured motorist benefits, contending that it was not obligated to pay because the policy required a claimant to present evidence other than the testimony of the insured to prove the facts of an accident in which there was no physical contact with the "phantom" vehicle. The trial court granted the insurer summary judgment.

Reversing, the state high court noted that the state's uninsured motorist statute provides protection for persons who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured vehicles because of bodily injury or death resulting from negligence. A motorist "legally entitled" to recover damages, the court explained, is one who presents sufficient facts to prove an accident occurred under circumstances that would entitle the motorist to coverage. Thus, a motorist is legally entitled to recover if he or she meets the burden of presenting substantial evidence to survive a summary judgment motion and a factfinder is reasonably satisfied that the motorist should recover damages.

Here, the only evidence of a phantom vehicle, the court said, is Walker's own testimony, which could constitute substantial evidence. Although Walker's evidence is excluded under the insurer's policy, the court found that the exclusion of testimony from a claimant could have absurd results. For example, the court noted, if three witnesses to a phantom vehicle accident make a claim under the insurer's policy, the testimony of all three witnesses would be excluded. In such a situation, the court reasoned, the exclusion provision could be used by the insurer to hide an enormous amount of testimonial evidence that would indicate a claimant is legally entitled to recover damages.

Further, a policy exclusion that is more restrictive than the uninsured motorist statute is unenforceable because the provision raises the burden of proof for some claimants higher than the evidentiary burden under state law. Holding otherwise, the court concluded, would permit the insurer to change state law by contract.

Accordingly, the court remanded.

Walker's Counsel

*J. Farrest Taylor, Dothan, Ala.