Hannon v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 1999 WL 23254 (Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, January 22, 1999): Melvin Hannon sued, inter alia, Scottsdale Insurance Company in the Circuit Court of Clarke County, seeking uninsured motorist benefits for injuries he sustained in a single vehicle accident. Hannon alleged that while he was driving a tractor-trailer truck, an unidentified "phantom vehicle" crossed over into his lane of travel, which caused him to leave the roadway and overturn his truck. The phantom vehicle did not collide with Hannon's truck, and there were no witnesses to the accident. Scottsdale responded by filing a motion for summary judgment, which set forth the witness corroboration requirement in Scottsdale's policy. This provision allows an insured party to recover uninsured motorist benefits for injuries caused by a phantom vehicle only if "the facts of the 'accident' can be corroborated by competent evidence other than the testimony of any person making a claim under this or any similar insurance [policy]." The trail court granted Scottsdale's motion. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, noting that the policy's corroboration requirement was valid and did not violate public policy.
Ex Parte Clarke, 7 ALW 31 - 5 (1970242), 1988 WL 854831, (Alabama Supreme Court, December 11, 1998): Plaintiffs, Stanley and Patricia Clarke, insured their automobile through an insurance policy issued by Allstate Insurance Company. Their car was stolen in July of 1995, and plaintiffs filed a proof of loss with Allstate. Several weeks later, the Clarkes notified Allstate that they had found the automobile in an apartment complex parking lot. The Clarkes filed a second proof of loss, alleging that the vehicle has been damaged. An Allstate adjuster inspected the vehicle and concluded that whoever stolen the vehicle had done so with a key because no locks had been damaged and no electrical wires had been cut or damaged. Allstate notified the Clarkes that they would be required to submit to an examination under oath. This examination was scheduled on three different occasions, but the Clarkes failed to appear. Allstate refused to pay the Clarkes' claim, and the Clarkes' filed a suit, alleging bad faith, outrage, fraud, conspiracy and breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court acknowledged that an endorsement to the Allstate policy required insured to submit to an examination under oath at the Company's request; however, the Court found that Allstate had presented no evidence that the endorsement had ever been mailed or delivered to the Clarkes. Accordingly, a genuine issue of material fact existed with regard to whether this endorsement had in fact been mailed to the Clarkes.