Summary
In Stack v. Hanover Insurance Co., 57 Ala. App. 504, 329 So.2d 561 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976), the Alabama court rejected the argument that damage caused when a deer crashed through a glass door and caused substantial interior damage before jumping out of a bedroom window resulted from "vandalism or malicious mischief."
Summary of this case from Capital Flip, LLC v. Am. Modern Select Ins. Co.Opinion
Civ. 703.
March 24, 1976.
Appeal from the Coffee County Circuit Court, Enterprise Division, Riley P. Green, Jr., J.
Cassady Fuller, and M. Dale Marsh, Enterprise, for appellants.
If directed charge is requested, entire evidence must be viewed in light favorable to opponent and if reasonable inference adverse to party requesting charge may be drawn, charge must be refused. Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 50(e). Alabama Power Co. v. Taylor, 293 Ala. 484, 306 So.2d 236. The general affirmative charge should not be given for the defendant if there is the slightest evidence tending to prove a right of recovery by the plaintiff or if there is evidence reasonably affording an inference adverse to the right of recovery by the defendant. Birmingham Loan Co. v. Klinner, 39 Ala. 125, 95 So.2d 402. If there is doubt as to the extent or fact of coverage, the language of the policy will be construed in its most inclusive sense for the benefit of the insured. Alabama Mutual Casualty Ins. Co., a Corporation v. H. C. Tubbs and Roy E. Croder, 293 Ala. 432, 304 So.2d 589. It has also been stated that the public policy of this state requires the broadest possible coverage consistent with the intentions of the parties and the contract between the insured and the insurer. Trans-Continental Mutual Ins. Co. v. Harrison, 262 Ala. 373, 78 So.2d 917. Whether one unlawfully in the possession of an automobile and upsetting the same by driving at an extremely excessive rate of speed, has, in view of a past history of dementia praecox, the mental capacity to do an act willfully or wantonly so as to constitute "vandalism" within the meaning of an automobile comprehensive coverage policy is a jury question. Great American Ins. Co. v. Dedmon, 260 Ala. 330, 70 So.2d 421.
Dunn, Porterfield, Scholl Clark, and Larry W. Harper, Birmingham, for appellee.
When there is no ambiguity in a provision of an insurance contract, it must be enforced as written. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Wales, 283 Ala. 493, 218 So.2d 822 (1969); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 281 Ala. 671, 207 So.2d 657 (1968). Well defined criminal law terms may be resorted to in order to determine the scope of the same terms at civil law. Jones v. Auto Owners Insurance Co., 43 Ala. App. 101, 180 So.2d 145 (1965). Vandalism or malicious mischief results from acts done willfully and maliciously. Coleman v. State, 41 Ala. App. 306, 130 So.2d 826 (1961); Johnson v. State, 18 Ala. App. 70, 88 So. 348 (1921).
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment for defendant after suit upon a home owners insurance policy.
The home of plaintiffs in Enterprise was entered by a large female deer. The deer gained entry by crashing through sliding glass doors in the den. It exited by crashing through a bedroom window. The aftermath was extensive damage to door, window, furniture, carpet and drapes.
Plaintiffs claimed loss to the insured property under the vandalism provision of their policy with defendant which read as follows:
"9. Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, meaning only the wilful and malicious damage to or destruction of the property covered. . . ."
The court, upon motion by defendant, directed a verdict in favor of defendant. Motion for new trial was overruled.
The ruling of the trial court on each motion is charged as error. We affirm.
Though citing no case in which destruction of insured property by the independent act of an animal has been considered in relation to vandalism as defined in an insurance policy, counsel for plaintiffs has presented some unique and interesting arguments to the court. However, we cannot accept counsel's contentions in view of the plain and unambiguous words of the policy.
It was pointed out in the case of Great American Ins. Co. v. Dedmon, 260 Ala. 330, 70 So.2d 421, that the word vandalism is derived from the Vandals, a Germanic people who in the 4th and 5th centuries overran much of Europe and Africa, willfully and purposely destroying many objects of art and literature. Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines vandalism as the "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of things of beauty or of public or private property."
There is no question but that the popular meaning of vandalism is the intentional and malicious destruction of property. Such act requires a human mind capable of forming the requisite intent of committing a wrongful act, resulting in senseless destruction or damage to property either public or private. Unkelsbee v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co. of Baltimore, 41 A.2d 168 (D.C.Mun.App.); Great American Ins. Co. v. Dedmon, supra.
An animal, such as a deer, to the human mind, and in law, is incapable of forming an intent to commit a wrongful act or to act maliciously. An animal, nonhuman, acts or reacts instinctively without knowledge of right or wrong as defined by man.
In the popular connotation of vandalism it is clear that the destruction of plaintiffs' property by the independent action of the deer in this case does not fall within the terms of the policy of insurance. An insurance policy without ambiguity in its terms must be enforced as written. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Wales, 283 Ala. 493, 218 So.2d 822.
AFFIRMED.
BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.