Ginger Bailey sued her insurer Progressive Specialty Insurance Company for uninsured-motorist benefits, breach of contract, and bad-faith failure to pay after sustaining injuries in a hit-and-run accident caused by Luvert Caver. Bailey had obtained a default judgment against Caver for $125,000 in damages, but Progressive intervened in the action and argued it was not bound by that judgment. The trial court ruled that the default judgment was not binding on Progressive, denied Bailey's claims, and entered summary judgment for the insurer. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a default judgment against the tortfeasor does not establish the insurer's liability for UM benefits where the insurer was not a party bound by the judgment. The court reasoned that Progressive had properly intervened to protect its interests and that Bailey could not use the default judgment to force payment under the policy.
The case involved Thomas Hayes, a custodian at Vintage Pharmaceuticals, who sought workers' compensation benefits after fracturing his right heel bone in a workplace forklift accident, which led to infection, multiple surgeries, and ongoing issues with standing, walking, and foot elevation that interacted with a preexisting congenital condition in his left foot. The trial court awarded permanent total-disability benefits, finding the injury extended beyond the scheduled member to affect the body as a whole. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that compensation must be limited to the schedule under Ala. Code § 25-5-57(a)(3)a. The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari to address potential conflicts with its precedents in Ex parte Drummond Co. and Ex parte Jackson, which require proof that a scheduled injury extends to a nonscheduled body part and interferes with its efficiency. The Court examined evidence of effects on balance, gait, and daily functioning to determine whether benefits outside the schedule were warranted.
In Smith v. Cowart, minority shareholders in Heartland Products, Inc., a landscaping business, sued the majority owner and his family members alleging breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and fraudulent transfer of corporate equipment and assets to competing businesses. The trial court issued a writ of seizure for the equipment secured by a $250,000 bond, later dissolved the writ, dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for failure to prosecute after years of delays in discovery and depositions, and ordered forfeiture of the bond. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the claims due to the plaintiffs' inaction but reversed the reaffirmance of the bond forfeiture order, remanding for further proceedings on that issue.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liabilityproperty
This case arose from a juvenile court dependency determination involving a minor child, which was appealed by the Jefferson County Department of Human Resources and reviewed by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. The Supreme Court of Alabama denied the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the child's guardian ad litem without issuing an opinion. The denial was based on procedural rules limiting such petitions to parties who participated in the underlying appeal, as the guardian ad litem was not a formal party. A dissent contended that the guardian ad litem, acting in loco parentis to protect the child's interests, should have standing to seek further review given the case's factual and legal complexities.
The case concerned whether the Association of General Contractors Self-Insurer's Fund, a group of employers pooling liabilities to qualify as self-insurers under Alabama's Workers' Compensation Act, could recover from the Alabama Insurance Guaranty Association on an unpaid claim arising from a policy issued by Reliance National Indemnity Company, which later became insolvent. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Fund, holding that recovery was permitted under the Alabama Insurance Guaranty Association Act. The court reasoned that the Fund's claim did not fall within the statutory exclusion for amounts due any reinsurer, insurer, insurance pool, or underwriting association, and that the Reliance policy constituted direct insurance to which the Guaranty Act applied.
The case concerned buyers Wylene Sue Teer and Ross Teer who sued seller Judith A. Johnston for intentional fraud after purchasing her used residential property, alleging that Johnston falsely stated in a disclosure form that the property had no flooding or drainage problems even though she knew of prior flooding caused by county-installed culverts. The Mobile Circuit Court granted summary judgment to Johnston, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the doctrine of caveat emptor governs sales of used real estate, the purchase agreement contained an "as is" clause and an integration provision stating it was the sole agreement between the parties, and the separate disclosure statement was never added to the contract, so the buyers' fraud claims were barred as a matter of law.