Glenn Murdock

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.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employment

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.

family lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

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.

property

American Resources Insurance Company filed a declaratory-judgment action in Mobile Circuit Court against Restoration Coatings seeking a ruling on whether its commercial general-liability policy covered claims arising from alleged defective work by the insured in a Florida construction project. The trial court granted Restoration Coatings' motion to transfer the case to St. Clair Circuit Court under Alabama's forum non conveniens statute, § 6-3-21.1(a). ARIC petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to vacate the transfer order. The Court granted the petition, holding that Restoration Coatings failed to meet its burden of showing that convenience of parties and witnesses or the interest of justice required transfer, as the evidence consisted only of the defendant's principal place of business in St. Clair County without demonstrating stronger connections there than in Mobile County.

procedure

In this case, Leo Paul Brooks sued Norfolk Southern Railway under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for work-related back and hip injuries but failed to disclose the claim as an asset in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. Norfolk Southern moved for summary judgment, arguing judicial estoppel barred the suit due to the nondisclosure. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed summary judgment against Brooks personally on judicial estoppel grounds but reversed as to the bankruptcy trustee, holding that the trustee could pursue the claim for the benefit of creditors as the real party in interest. The court reasoned that post-petition conduct like nondisclosure does not bind the trustee and that substitution of the trustee was appropriate even after summary judgment. It remanded for further proceedings on the trustee's claims.

proceduretorts & liability

In this Alabama capital murder case, James A. Harrison Jr. filed a Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief alleging juror misconduct, claiming two jurors failed to disclose during voir dire that they had been robbery victims and that one had recent felony charges. The trial court and Court of Criminal Appeals denied the claims as precluded under Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (5) because they were not raised on direct appeal. The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari to address a conflict with Ex parte Burgess and held the claims were not precluded, reasoning that Harrison had no reason to know of the jurors' inaccurate answers before his new-trial motion or direct appeal. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the misconduct allegations.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over the disposition of a deceased husband's 50% beneficial interest in a revocable land trust created jointly with his wife, after the husband died insolvent and creditors sought assets for his estate. The trial court ruled that the interest passed to the surviving wife under Alabama Code § 43-8-225(b), a wills statute addressing the residue of a residue. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that reversal. The core reasoning was that § 43-8-225(b) is a rule of construction applicable only to wills, not trusts, and the trust agreement treated the beneficiaries' interests as personal property without providing for automatic survivorship or otherwise incorporating will-construction rules.

property

In Blevins v. Chapman, an attorney residing in Elmore County challenged the constitutionality of Alabama Code § 12-17-20(b)(16), which requires each of the three circuit judges in the 19th Judicial Circuit to reside in a specific county within the circuit (Elmore, Autauga, or Chilton) and to have lived there for at least one year before qualifying as a candidate. Blevins, who sought to run for the Chilton County-designated seat, argued that the county-residency rule violated the Equal Protection Clause by treating him differently from candidates in other circuits and limiting voter choices. The Montgomery Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the Secretary of State, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court applied rational-basis review, concluding that the statute did not burden a fundamental right or suspect class and that the residency requirement was rationally related to legitimate state interests such as increasing voter familiarity with candidates, ensuring geographic representation across counties, preventing dominance by more populous areas, and reducing judicial recusals.

electionscivil rights

This case involved a petition to the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals in J.L.P. v. L.A.M. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. In its brief order, the Court stated that its denial should not be understood as approving all language, reasons, or statements of law in the lower court's opinion, citing Horsley v. Horsley. The order was issued without further substantive analysis or additional commentary from the justices.

family lawprocedure

Shelvia Graves sued Brookwood Health Services alleging that its nurses negligently inserted an IV into her right hand during a gastrointestinal exam, resulting in permanent nerve damage. The trial court granted summary judgment to Brookwood, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The court found genuine issues of material fact on breach of the standard of care and causation, based on conflicting evidence from the patient's testimony, medical records, nurse affidavits, and expert depositions from treating physicians. It rejected the trial court's conclusion that the causation testimony was insufficient or that a new claim had been improperly added.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

This case involved Wilson Lamar Frazier's claims against Core Industries under the Jones Act for back and leg injuries allegedly sustained while working as a welder on barges and other structures, with some reference to the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Frazier, who was leased to Core from another company and performed welding, construction, and repair tasks mostly on land or on docked barges used as work platforms, appealed from the Mobile Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment to Core. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that Frazier was not a seaman entitled to Jones Act remedies because he lacked a substantial connection in duration and nature to a vessel in navigation. The barges in question were not designed or used for navigation but served as stationary work platforms, and Frazier routinely returned home each night rather than living aboard or facing sea perils. The court also noted that any potential claim under LHWCA section 905(b) would be barred due to Frazier's shipbuilding and repair work.

labor & employmentfederal power

The case concerned the Governor's Task Force on Illegal Gambling, created by Executive Order to enforce Alabama's anti-gambling laws, which seized over 100 electronic gaming machines, servers, cash, and records from Cornerstone Community Outreach's White Hall Entertainment Center in Lowndes County. Cornerstone, licensed under local Amendment 674 to conduct charity bingo, sued Governor Riley and Task Force members for a declaratory judgment that its operations were legal and for a preliminary injunction to halt further interference and return the seized items, claiming the machines were not illegal slot machines under state law. Freedom Trail Ventures intervened as owner of some machines. After a hearing, the trial court granted the preliminary injunction. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court examined the legal question of whether the electronic machines constituted permissible bingo under the constitutional amendment, which requires traditional elements such as player-selected numbers on cards and a human-called sequence rather than computerized slot-style play.

criminal law

The case involved James McKinney's claim for underinsured-motorist (UM) benefits from Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company after a car accident caused by John Elwin Jackson, where McKinney's damages exceeded $45,000, Jackson's insurer paid its $25,000 limit, and Nationwide had paid $2,000 under a separate medical-payments coverage. McKinney's policy included a setoff provision reducing UM limits by amounts paid under medical-payments coverage, and the trial court granted summary judgment to Nationwide allowing the offset against the $20,000 UM limit. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the setoff clause was unenforceable. The core reasoning was that policy provisions more restrictive than the minimum UM coverage mandated by Alabama Code § 32-7-23 are void as against public policy, and an insurer may not collect a premium for UM coverage only to reduce it through such a limiting clause.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a real estate brokerage firm, Century 21 Paramount, that sued multiple builders, developers, and a competing brokerage after its former agent allegedly diverted listing agreements tied to subdivision lot sales. Paramount asserted claims including breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual or business relations, and civil conspiracy, which arose after it was named as a defendant in a separate commission dispute filed by the former agent. The trial court dismissed Paramount's claims on the ground that they had been improperly asserted in a third-party complaint rather than as counterclaims or cross-claims. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the claims were compulsory counterclaims arising from the same transaction or occurrence as the underlying suit and that the trial court should have treated the pleading according to its substance rather than its title.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company and its insureds, the Austins, following a car accident with an uninsured driver. After a jury awarded damages to the Austins against the driver and Nationwide for uninsured motorist benefits, Nationwide sought to reduce the judgment by prior medical payments made under the policy, while the Austins sought to tax deposition costs as additional expenses. The trial court denied the setoff and granted the costs. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the taxation of costs but reversed in part on the setoff, holding that the policy's reduction clause could apply to coverage amounts exceeding the statutory minimum uninsured motorist coverage without violating public policy.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned a property owner's lawsuit against the Tuscaloosa County Commission seeking a declaratory judgment, injunction, and damages after the county refused to repair a storm sewer running under her lot in a subdivision. The owner argued that the recorded plat's drainage easement and the county's acceptance of the subdivision created a duty to maintain the entire system as a single public structure. The trial court granted summary judgment to the commission, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the 1993 county resolution accepted maintenance responsibility only for drainage structures within dedicated street rights-of-way, not on private property, and that any broader obligation would require legislative action rather than judicial imposition of public policy.

property

The case involved the Fosters, as trustee and beneficiary of a family trust, suing Hacienda Nirvana for nonpayment on a 1993 promissory note for $200,000 issued in exchange for horses, with a final due date of February 1, 1999; no payments were made after 1996, and the suit was filed in November 2005. The trial court dismissed the action as time-barred. The court held that the note was a negotiable instrument under Article 3 of Alabama's Uniform Commercial Code, so the six-year statute of limitations in § 7-3-118 applied from the due date rather than any longer period for instruments under seal. The appellate court affirmed after de novo review of the note's language and the statutory provisions, concluding the claim was untimely.

business & regulatoryprocedure