Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Calvert Insurance Co. v. Gator Leasing Co.
Citations: 569 So. 2d 399; 1990 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 351; 1990 WL 99734Docket: Civ. 7410
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; July 18, 1990; Alabama; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made regarding an $8,750 award from an insurance policy involving Gator Leasing Company, Inc. (appellee) and Gillard Roberson. In August 1986, Roberson leased a trailer and was required to insure it. He became delinquent in lease payments by November 1986, prompting the appellee to pursue collection actions, assuming the trailer was still in Roberson's possession. The appellee had a business automobile insurance policy with Calvert Insurance Company (appellant) effective from February 7, 1986, to February 7, 1987. The trailer's whereabouts were unknown during the trial. Roberson incorrectly reported the trailer's location, leading the appellee to conclude it was stolen. The trial court found that the trailer was covered by the insurance policy, that it had been stolen, and that the appellee reported the theft within a reasonable timeframe. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the appellee. The appeal focused on whether sufficient evidence existed to confirm that the theft occurred while the insurance policy was active. The court noted that findings from ore tenus proceedings are presumed correct unless a clear error is shown. Evidence indicated that Roberson made one payment, but subsequent payments were not made due to insufficient funds, which occurred before the policy’s expiration. The appellee's president testified to efforts made to locate the trailer, initiated only after Roberson's erroneous report in July 1987, well after the policy had lapsed. Prior to that, the appellee had reasonably believed the trailer was still with Roberson and had made efforts to secure payment. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the appellee's entitlement to recover under the insurance policy. The ruling was affirmed with concurrence from additional judges.