ACCC moved to dismiss, arguing that Ms. Reese was the “named insured” in the policy and that she had rejected UIM coverage, as permitted by Alabama law.

The trial court granted the motion and dismissed Mr. Beeman's claim against ACCC.

Mr. Beeman appealed.

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court affirmed.

In its decision, the appellate court explained that the initial application for insurance indicated that Ms. Reese was the sole applicant – and that she had specifically rejected UIM coverage.

The appellate court added that the renewal certificate for the next year indicated that the “policyholder” was Ms. Reese.

However, the appellate court continued, nothing in the initial application, the renewal certificate, or the policy defined the term “named insured” or indicated specifically that Ms. Reese was the “named insured” under the policy. Moreover, neither the initial application, which did not list Mr. Beeman at all, nor the renewal certificate indicated that Mr. Beeman was a “named insured.” According to the appellate court, the renewal certificate reflected that Mr. Beeman was listed on the declarations page as a “driver” and he was an “insured person” under the policy because he was Ms. Reese's son, living in her household, and endorsed on the policy.

The appellate court then rejected Mr. Beeman's contention that he was a “named insured” on the policy and, therefore, that Ms. Reese's rejection of UIM coverage was not binding on him because each named insured must reject UIM coverage for himself or herself under Alabama law.

The fact that Mr. Beeman was listed on the renewal certificate did not result in his being a “named insured” or “policyholder,” the appellate court ruled. It reasoned that the renewal certificate “clearly identifie[d Ms.] Reese as the named insured” and listed Mr. Beeman only as a “driver.”

The appellate court conceded that no Alabama court had directly considered whether being listed on a declarations page as a “driver” equated with being a “named insured” or “policyholder” under the policy, but it ruled that it did not. Mr. Beeman, the appellate court declared, did “not provide a convincing argument that his inclusion on the renewal certificate as a 'driver' resulted in his being made a named insured or a policyholder.” Therefore, the appellate court reasoned, he did not have a right to reject UIM coverage.

In sum, the appellate court concluded that because Ms. Reese was listed on the initial application and the renewal certificate as the “policyholder,” which term was equivalent to “named insured,” and because Mr. Beeman was merely listed as a “driver” on the renewal certificate, he was not a “named insured” under the policy and, therefore, Ms. Reese's rejection of UIM coverage was effective as to Mr. Beeman.

The case is Beeman v. ACCC Ins. Co., No. 2171114 (AL Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2019).

Insurance Coverage Law Center Comment

Courts in other states also have concluded that being listed as a driver did not equate with being a “named insured” or “policyholder.” See Ball v. Allstate Ins. Co., 426 P.3d 862, 867 (Alaska 2018) (concluding that the term “policyholder” did not encompass “listed drivers”); Stanley v. Government Emps. Ins. Co., 344 Ga. App. 342, 345, 810 S.E.2d 179, 182 (2018) (quoting Dunn-Craft v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 314 Ga. App. 620, 621, 724 S.E.2d 903, 906 (2012)) (stating that “Georgia law is clear that 'listed drivers are not named insureds'“); Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wilkerson, 250 Ga. App. 100, 101, 549 S.E.2d 740, 742 (2001) (declaring that, although a person “may be insured because he is an authorized driver of the insured vehicle, he is not the named insured”); Millspaugh v. Ross, 645 N.E.2d 14, 16-17 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (determining that a person listed only as a “principal driver” was not a “named insured”); Carlson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 749 N.W.2d 41, 46 (Minn. 2008) (determining that a person listed as a driver was not a “policy holder”); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 123 N.C. App. 103, 106, 472 S.E.2d 220, 222 (1996) (rejecting the argument that “the term 'driver' is synonymous with 'named insured'“); Waller v. Rocky Mountain Fire & Cas. Co., 272 Or. 69, 76, 535 P.2d 530, 533 (1975) (concluding that the act of the named insured adding his son on the policy as a “new driver” did not make the son a “named insured”); and Laird v. Allstate Ins. Co., 232 Or. App. 162, 171, 221 P.3d 780, 785 (2009) (determining that a “listed driver” was not a policyholder”).