Ex parte Preston Mason. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Preston Mason)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 07/27/07 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2290649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2007 _________________________ 1060665 _________________________ Ex parte Preston Mason PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Preston Mason) (Lawrence Circuit Court, CV-03-68; Court of Civil Appeals, 2050488) WOODALL, Justice. 1060665 On March 20, 2001, Preston Mason was involved in a motorvehicle accident with an uninsured motorist. 2003, Mason sued State Farm Mutual On March 26, Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") seeking uninsured-motorist benefits. Mason obtained a judgment against State Farm; State Farm then appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for the entry of a judgment in favor of State Farm. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mason, [Ms. 2050488, January 12, 2007] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). The basis for the Court of Civil Appeals' decision was its conclusion that an uninsured-motorist insurer may rely upon a statute-oflimitations defense that would be available to the uninsured motorist. This Court granted certiorari review, and we reverse and remand. In making its decision, the Court of Civil Appeals did not have the benefit of this Court's decision in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bennett, [Ms. 1051721, April 27, 2007] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. 2007). an uninsured motorist's In Bennett, this Court held that statute-of-limitations defense, a procedural defense, is not available to State Farm in defense 2 1060665 of a claim for uninsured-motorist benefits. State Farm argues that there is "no distinction procedural defenses and substantive defenses." brief, at 15. In this case, between State Farm's However, as this Court explained in Bennett, there is an important distinction, and that distinction is dispositive of this case. Only the uninsured motorist's substantive defenses are available to the insurer. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Cobb, C.J., and See, Lyons, Smith, Bolin, and Parker, JJ., concur. Murdock, J., recuses himself. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
