Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Thomas, 103 So. 3d 795

District court certified two questions of first impression to Alabama Supreme Court under Rule 18, Ala. R. App. P., about enforceability of a carry-for-a-fee exclusion in a personal auto policy.
The subject Nationwide policy excludes coverage for use of a motor vehicle to carry persons or property for a fee and contains a duty-to-notify provision about changes in use.
Gooden, employed full-time by New South Express and later delivering Birmingham News, began delivering newspapers part-time earlier in 2009 and did not notify Nationwide of his newspaper delivery activity.
Gooden’s accident occurred Oct. 12, 2009 on Houston Road while he was delivering papers; his driver’s route included Houston Road and Sparrow Lane.
Nationwide argued the exclusion is unambiguous and applicable; defendants argued ambiguity and lack of notice; the district court found some notice provisions ambiguous and did not certify waiver/estoppel or uninsured-motorist/statutory issues.
The Alabama Supreme Court ultimately answered Question 1 in the affirmative and Question 2 in the negative; some judges dissented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Carry-for-a-fee exclusion applies to newspaper delivery	Thomas argues exclusion should not apply to newspaper delivery	Nationwide argues exclusion is unambiguous and enforceable	Yes, exclusion can be enforced when delivery is for a fee at time of accident
Carry-for-a-fee exclusion after delivery complete	Thomas argues exclusion applies post-delivery	Nationwide argues exclusion continues after delivery	No, exclusion does not apply after delivery is complete

Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 817 So.2d 687 (Ala.2001) (defines ambiguity and interpretation standards for insurance policy language)
Hearn (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baker), 233 Ala. 31 (Ala.1936) (ambiguity rules; use at time of accident; common enterprise)
Perry (Imperial Assurance Co. v. Perry), 252 Ala. 424 (Ala.1949) (use of vehicle to carry persons for a charge; facts matter)
Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 505 So.2d 362 (Ala.1987) (delineates when carry-for-a-fee excludes; definite amount and common enterprise)
Woodall v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 658 So.2d 369 (Ala.1995) (waiver/estoppel not applicable to unambiguous exclusions)
Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Parish, 630 So.2d 437 (Ala.1993) (estoppel/waiver not applicable to exclusions)
Mooradian v. Canal Insurance Co., 272 Ala. 373 (Ala.1961) (waiver/estoppel cannot alter policy terms)
Alliance Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, 494 So.2d 609 (Ala.1986) (interpretation rules for exclusions; narrowly construed)
Carpet Installation & Supplies of Glenco v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 628 So.2d 560 (Ala.1993) (ambiguity rule for exclusions; narrow interpretation)
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Chilton-Shelby Mental Health Ctr., 595 So.2d 1375 (Ala.1982) (general contract-interpretation principles for exclusions)