Federal Court Ruling Impacts Antique Car Insurance Coverage

A recent ruling by a federal appeals court stated that an antique car insurance policy does not need to provide uninsured motorist coverage if the policyholder already has this coverage through another insurer. On July 8, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit Court overturned a prior decision in an Alabama case involving Essentia Insurance Company. This verdict holds significant implications for insurers developing specialty or supplemental auto insurance policies. The case centered around a driver injured by an uninsured motorist while on a motorcycle, with two relevant vehicles: the motorcycle and a 1965 Ford F-100 antique truck. The motorcycle was insured via a standard auto policy with GEICO at $197.52 annually, whereas the Ford was covered by Essentia under a specialty policy for $117 per year. After the accident, the driver received $25,000 in uninsured motorist benefits from his GEICO policy. Since the incident didn’t involve the Ford, Essentia's policy did not apply. Despite this, the driver claimed Essentia was required by Alabama law to offer uninsured motorist coverage under its specialty policy. Essentia denied this claim, prompting a lawsuit. Essentia's Classic Automobile Policy outlined that "insured" under uninsured motorist terms involved individuals only when "using or occupying [the] covered auto" or "not occupying a motor vehicle." The policy explicitly excluded coverage for injuries incurred while using vehicles other than the covered antique. The policy also mandated maintaining a separate policy to meet state insurance requirements, covering liability, uninsured motorist, and underinsured motorist situations. Since GEICO fulfilled these requirements, Essentia argued no additional coverage was necessary. Initially, the district court held Essentia liable but capped the insurer’s responsibility at Alabama’s $25,000 minimum uninsured motorist coverage, prompting Essentia to appeal. The appeals court overturned the lower court's ruling. With no definitive guidance from the Alabama Supreme Court, the judges predicted its stance, referencing Alabama Code § 32-7-22(j). This statute permits necessary coverage through multiple carriers. Comparing with similar state rulings, the court noted that specialty antique vehicle policies feature lower premiums due to limited use, and additional coverage mandates might escalate premiums. For insurance professionals, this logic emphasizes crucial legal interpretations. The panel referred to Alabama legal precedents, maintaining that the law's priority is mandatory coverage existence, irrespective of the carrier. Hence, the court found that Essentia’s policy didn't deny uninsured motorist coverage but allocated it to the policyholder’s standard insurance. The case was remanded to the lower court for further action.