U.S. Fidelity Guar. Co. v. Armstrong

126 Citing cases

  1. Porterfield v. Audubon Indem. Co.

    856 So. 2d 789 (Ala. 2002)   Cited 90 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, although lead paint constitutes a “pollutant,” the absolute pollution exclusion did not apply because flaking of lead paint from walls did not constitute “discharge”

    "It is well settled `that [an] insurer's duty to defend is more extensive than its duty to [indemnify]. United States Fid. Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So.2d 1164, 1168 (Ala. 1985) (citations omitted). Whether an insurance company owes its insured a duty to provide a defense in proceedings instituted against the insured is determined primarily by the allegations contained in the complaint.

  2. Universal Underwriters v. Stokes Chevrolet

    990 F.2d 598 (11th Cir. 1993)   Cited 38 times
    Explaining that "Alabama courts have consistently construed . . . [substantively identical language in commercial insurance policies] as precluding coverage only where the insured subjectively intended or expected its action to cause injury"

    However, the district court noted that Alabama courts have interpreted virtually identical policy provisions which limit coverage to injuries not "intended or expected from the standpoint of the insured" as affording coverage except where the insured subjectively intended to cause the injury for which it is found liable. See U.S. Fidelity Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So.2d 1164, 1167 (Ala. 1985); Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 454 So.2d 921, 925 (Ala. 1984). The district court found this interpretation of the policy's coverage provisions to be consistent with its duty to resolve policy ambiguities in favor of the insured.

  3. Canal Insurance Company v. MG Tank Lines Inc.

    Civil Action 00-0183-AH-L (S.D. Ala. May. 9, 2001)

    However, because the decision on whether to provide a defense must be made at a preliminary stage in the proceedings, Alabama holds that an insurer's duty to defend may be broader than its duty to indemnify. See Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Stokes Chevrolet, Inc., 990 F.2d 598, 602 (11th Cir. 1993); Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Youngblood, 549 So.2d 76, 78 (Ala. 1989) U.S. Fidelity Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So.2d 1164, 1168 (Ala. 1985); Lawler Machine Foundry Co. v. Pacific Indem. Ins. Co., 383 So.2d 156, 157 (Ala. 1980). The insurer's duty to defend at this preliminary stage "must be determined primarily from the allegations of the complaint."

  4. State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. McIntyre

    652 F. Supp. 1177 (N.D. Ala. 1987)   Cited 30 times
    In State Auto Mutual Insurance Co. v. McIntyre, 652 F. Supp. 1177 (N.D.Ala. 1987) the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that, under Alabama law, an insured was covered under a homeowner's policy for any civil liability resulting from non-violent sexual abuse of children, notwithstanding the policy exclusion for injuries intended or expected by the insured, where the insured had no specific intent to harm.

    The inexplicable failure of Holman to include a statement therein that the court was bound by its past (and recent) pronouncements of the proper standard to be used to interpret the homeowner's policy exclusion there under consideration is simply a legal mystery, the solution for which can only be provided by that court. Another Alabama Supreme Court opinion rendered on September 20, 1985 which reaffirmed the rationale, reasoning and pronouncements of Dyer, Watson and North River Ins. Co. is U.S. Fidelity Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So.2d 1164 (Ala. 1985), which construed a USF G policy of general liability insurance providing in pertinent part: "The company will pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of

  5. Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Gulf Coast Aerial, LLC

    533 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (S.D. Ala. 2021)   Cited 1 times
    Staying decision on the duty to indemnify claim

    ‘It is well settled "that [an] insurer's duty to defend is more extensive than its duty to [indemnify]." United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Armstrong , 479 So.2d 1164, 1168 (Ala. 1985) (citations omitted). Whether an insurance company owes its insured a duty to provide a defense in proceedings instituted against the insured is determined primarily by the allegations contained in the complaint.

  6. Evanston Ins. Co. v. J&J Cable Constr., LLC

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15cv-506-WHA (wo) (M.D. Ala. Sep. 22, 2016)   Cited 1 times
    Concluding that defendant insureds presented evidence that their damages occurred before insurance policy expired

    The pollution exclusion clause at issue appears to be standard in the insurance industry and commonly contained in commercial general liability insurance policies. The Supreme Court of Alabama previously has considered whether sewage is pollution under a qualified pollution-exclusion clause, and concluded, under the facts of that case, that it was not, see United States Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So. 2d 1164 (Ala. 1985), but has not considered whether sewage is pollution under an absolute pollution-exclusion clause. Evanston's position in this case is that the injuries claimed in the two underlying suits fit within the policy exclusion for property damage or bodily injury caused by pollutants, which by policy definition includes "waste," which is further qualified as including materials to be recycled, reconditioned, or reclaimed. (Doc. #82-4 at p.13).

  7. USF Ins. Co. v. Metcalf Realty Co.

    Civil Action Number 2:12-cv-02529-AKK (N.D. Ala. Aug. 30, 2013)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that coverage was precluded under fungi exclusion where injured party's damages included abandoning part of his condominium, seeking medical attention, taking prescriptions, and spending money on repairs due to a "mold and mildew problem"

    Tanner v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 874 So. 2d 1058, 1063 (Ala. 2003) (citing Porterfield v. Audubon Indem. Co., 856 So. 2d 789, 791-92 (Ala. 2002)). While ordinarily the two duties "must be analyzed separately," id. at 1066 (quoting U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So. 2d 1164, 1167 (Ala. 1985)), because the duty to defend is broader, no duty to indemnify exists where there is no duty to defend, id. at 1063. For this reason, the court begins by analyzing Indian Harbor's purported duty to defend.

  8. Shalimar Conts. v. Am. States Ins. Co.

    975 F. Supp. 1450 (M.D. Ala. 1997)   Cited 13 times
    Finding the deletion of the clause made the exclusion "far broader" than the previous exclusion

    Ajdarodini v. State Auto Mut. Ins. Co., 628 So.2d 312, 313 (Ala. 1993); Ladner Co. Inc. v. SouthernGuar. Ins. Co., 347 So.2d 100, 102 (Ala. 1977). Under Alabama law, the insured bears the burden of establishing coverage by demonstrating that a claim falls within the insurance policy, Colonial Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Collins, 280 Ala. 373, 194 So.2d 532, 535 (1967), while the insurer bears the burden of proving the applicability of any policy exclusions. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Stokes Chevrolet, 990 F.2d 598, 605 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing United States Fidelity Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So.2d 1164, 1168 (Ala. 1985)); see also Jordan v. National Accident Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 922 F.2d 732, 735 (11th Cir. 1991). According to the Alabama Supreme Court, "insurance companies have the right to limit the coverage offered through the use of exclusions in their policies, provided that those exclusions do not violate a statute or public policy."

  9. Tanner v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co.

    874 So. 2d 1058 (Ala. 2003)   Cited 92 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Granting summary judgment for insurer when underlying claims allege intentional conduct and exclusion applies to such conduct

    "It is well settled `that [an] insurer's duty to defend is more extensive than its duty to [indemnify].' United States Fid. Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So.2d 1164, 1168 (Ala. 1985) (citations omitted). Whether an insurance company owes its insured a duty to provide a defense in proceedings instituted against the insured is determined primarily by the allegations contained in the complaint.

  10. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Taylor Burton Co.

    2:22-cv-00224-RDP (N.D. Ala. Aug. 22, 2022)

    Ajdarodini v. State Auto Mut. Ins. Co., 628 So.2d 312, 313 (Ala. 1993). See also Tanner v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 874 So.2d 1058, 1063 (Ala. 2003); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So.2d 1164, 1168 (Ala. 1985) (“[T]he duty to defend arises when the original complaint alleges a state of facts within the coverage of the policy.”). When read in context, however, none of the cases cited by Frankemuth address whether the duty to defend could arise before the filing of a complaint.