The key here is that neither the inference of negligence nor the inference of the “use of a motor’vehicle” is drawn from another inference. For this reason, and because McKnight and Khirieh have produced substantial evidence on their claim of negligence and on their claim that their injuries arose from a phantom motorist’s use of a motor vehicle, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of the defendant, State Farm, and remand this cause for trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. HORNSBY, C.J., and SHORES, J., concur. MADDOX and HOUSTON, JJ., concur specially. 1 . State Farm makes no issue as to whether the alleged phantom motorist was uninsured. For a discussion of this issue in the "hit and run" context see State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Lambert, 291 Ala. 645, 285 So.2d 917 (1973) (<HOLDING>). HOUSTON, Justice (concurring specially). I
holding that an insurer may  assert as defenses the nonnegligence of the uninsured the contributory negligence of the insured and the lack of resulting damage all being matters of substantive law and legal defenses of the uninsured but it does not  succeed  to the rights of the uninsured motorist to interpose the latters procedural defense of statute of limitations holding motorist entitled to hearing before taking his license under statute that required loss of license if uninsured driver involved in an accident holding that a hit and run or unknown driver is deemed to be uninsured for purposes of the uninsured motorist statute holding term third party did not include an uninsured motorist carrier holding that a joint tortfeasor may assert a claim for contribution against the plaintiffs uninsured motorist carrier for the torts of an unknown driver