At one time, this court opined that the words “legally entitled to recover damages” meant simply that “the insured must be able to establish fault on the part of the uninsured motorist ... and must be able to prove the extent of [the insured’s] damages.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 51 Ala.App. 426, 431, 286 So.2d 302, 306 (Civ.1973). That gloss on the meaning of § 32-7-23(a) was later quoted by our Supreme Court in Quick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 429 So.2d 1033, 1035 (Ala.1983), and it was thereafter invoked to support the position that a defense that was personal to the uninsured motorist could not be asserted by a UM insurance carrier in defense of a claim for UM benefits. See State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 470 So.2d 1230, 1234 (Ala.1985) (<HOLDING>). Baldwin, in turn, was followed in State Farm
holding that the uncorroborated testimony of the insured can establish that he is legally entitled to recover from the driver of a phantom vehicle holding insurers right to subrogation arises only upon the insurers showing that the sum of the insureds recovery from the insurer and from persons legally responsible for the injury exceeds the insureds loss holding that it is wellsettled that although a plaintiff is entitled to full recovery for its damages it is not entitled to a double recovery for the same loss or injury holding that insureds were legally entitled to recover damages within the meaning of  32723 regardless of the fact that the operator is otherwise prohibited from such recovery holding that language requiring insurer to pay all sums which the insured  shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile includes recovery of exemplary damages under uninsured motorist provision of policy