The case involves Alabama Central Credit Union suing CUMIS Insurance Society in state court to recover under a fidelity bond for losses from an employee's improper loan approvals, along with claims against the employee Kiser for wanton conduct breaching his duties. Defendants removed the action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, contending Kiser was fraudulently joined. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and granted Kiser's motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims against him were time-barred by Alabama's two-year statute of limitations for tort claims under Ala. Code § 6-2-38. The court reasoned that the six-year limitations period for trespass to the person did not apply because the allegations involved neither personal injury nor a qualifying contract or specialty, leaving no possibility of recovery against the non-diverse defendant.
This case was a declaratory judgment action by Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company against the Mitchell family to determine coverage under an uninsured motorist policy for the death of Scott Mitchell, who was struck by an uninsured driver while working near a sanitation truck insured by Argonaut. The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment and granted the Mitchells' motion, ruling that Mitchell qualified as an insured. The core reasoning was that the policy defined "occupying" to include being in, upon, getting in, on, out or off the vehicle without requiring physical contact, and under Alabama law Mitchell was in close proximity to the truck and performing job duties associated with it at the time of the accident.
This ERISA case involved a dispute over disability benefits under an employee welfare plan, with the plaintiff challenging the applicable policy, benefit rate, and whether the insurer Sun Life held discretionary authority to decide claims. The court denied the plaintiff's motions to strike an affidavit, supplement the record or remand, and for partial summary judgment or judgment on the record, while granting the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment on all counts in the complaint. It found that the plan documents expressly conferred discretionary authority on the claims fiduciary (originally GE Group Life Assurance Company), which transferred through corporate name changes to Sun Life, and that the 60% salary benefit rate applied under the correct policy. The defendant's counterclaim for reimbursement was denied without prejudice due to insufficient detail on the relief sought.
This case involves a dispute over insurance coverage for fire damage to property owned by Ivey, where Allstate sought a declaratory judgment in federal court that it owed no coverage. Ivey had filed a state court action including additional claims against non-diverse defendants that could not be joined in federal court due to diversity requirements. The court granted Ivey's motion to dismiss the federal action without prejudice under the Wilton/Brillhart doctrine. It reasoned that the state court provided a more efficient forum to resolve all related claims together, applying the Ameritas guideposts which weighed in favor of dismissal due to considerations of judicial efficiency, the inability to join all parties in federal court, and avoiding procedural fencing by the insurer.
This case involved environmental groups challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' decision to issue a permit under the Clean Water Act for the construction of a dam on the Duck River in Alabama, arguing that the Corps failed to adequately assess environmental impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). After a prior remand requiring a harder look at certain issues, the Corps conducted additional analysis and again issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) without preparing a full environmental impact statement. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the Corps' decision was not arbitrary and capricious because it had sufficiently considered the need for the project, alternatives, and other relevant factors in its supplemental environmental assessment.
This case is a class action lawsuit brought by Alabama property owners against multiple industrial defendants, including U.S. Pipe, Phelps Dodge, FMC, and others, alleging damage to real property in Calhoun County from the deposit of foundry sand and waste materials at defendants' facilities. The court addressed several motions to dismiss the third amended complaint on grounds including Alabama's statute of repose, statute of limitations, failure to state a claim, and subject-matter jurisdiction issues arising after removal under CAFA. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, holding that claims against MW Custom Papers and Phelps Dodge were barred by the twenty-year rule of repose because their operations ended no later than 1977 and 1983, respectively, more than twenty years before the 2005 filing. The core reasoning applied Alabama precedent establishing that the repose period runs from the last act causing damage, combined with federal pleading standards from Twombly requiring factual allegations sufficient to support the claims, while disregarding extrinsic exhibits at the motion-to-dismiss stage.