Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Claudia Dabbieri filed a complaint at the Perry County circuit court naming Donald Wease, Alabama Cable and Fiber Repair, PDQ CATV, Inc., City Boy's Tire and Brake, Inc. (CBT), Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, and several fictitiously entities as defendants, asserting claims arising out of a motor-vehicle accident. CBT moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied that motion, and CBT petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to grant CBT's motion to dismiss. CBT is a Florida company, but operates a shop in Perry County. Plaintiff was driving a truck owned by Wease. Wease and Alabama Cable had all four tires on the van replaced. Plaintiff brought the van to CBT to replace the tires. Shortly thereafter, one of the tires failed, causing the van to leave the road and roll. Plaintiff sustained severe injuries. Later investigation would reveal that the tire failure was probably caused by tread separation which might have been caused by the improper sizing of the tires on the van. Finding that there was "limited evidence" that gave no indication that CBT "purposefully availed" itself of the protection of Alabama law, the Supreme Court granted CBT's petition and issued the writ. View "Dabbieri v. City Boy's Tire & Brake, Inc." on Justia Law

Harry and Bettye Coughlin appealed a circuit court's judgment dismissing Sheriff Mike Hale from an action they filed against him and several others. In 2008, the Coughlins sued Hale, among others, seeking money damages for numerous claims arising out of an ongoing dispute between the Coughlins and their neighbors. Hale moved to dismiss, arguing the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over them based on sovereign immunity. The circuit court entered its final judgment in 2010 disposing of all remaining claims against all remaining parties. Four days after that final judgment, the Coughlins filed a postjudgment motion, which the circuit court denied. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Coughlins filed their notice of appeal more than two years after the judgment they were appealing had been entered. The Court concluded that this was an untimely filing and dismissed the appeal. View "Coughlin v. Hale " on Justia Law

Oak Grove Resources, LLC, and Cliffs North American Coal, LLC (Oak Grove) appealed a trial court's order in favor of class Plaintiffs finding that Oak Grove failed to satisfy the requirements of a settlement agreement between the parties, and ordered the continued monitoring of air near Plaintiffs' properties for the presence of coal dust for one year. Plaintiffs sued Oak Grove in 1997 alleging that it operated a preparation plant in a manner that caused coal dust to become airborne and to migrate to their properties, where it settled, causing them to suffer both personal injury and property damage. In October 2002, the parties entered into a settlement agreement the 2002 settlement agreement provided for certain injunctive relief and the payment of attorney fees and expenses. The injunctive relief required Oak Grove to complete 14 specific remedial measures within 24 months of the execution of the 2002 settlement agreement. Oak Grove implemented the remedial measures at the Concord plant following the trial court's approval of the 2002 settlement agreement. However, Plaintiffs continued to complain that the Concord plant emitted coal dust onto their properties and that the remedial measures had not satisfactorily solved the problem. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that no objection was raised by Plaintiffs to the site locations until two months after testing began in July 2009. Furthermore, Plaintiffs' expert did not visit the air-monitoring sites until January 2010. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs inexcusably delayed in asserting their rights under a 2008 supplement and that Oak Grove would be unduly prejudiced if Plaintiffs were allowed to assert those rights. The Court reversed the trial court's award of injunctive relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Oak Grove Resources, LLC v. White" on Justia Law

Betty Bradberry and Inez T. Jones, as the "personal representatives of the heirs-at-law and/or wrongful death beneficiaries of" the decedents, Roland E. Bradberry and George D. Jones, respectively (Plaintiffs), appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Carrier Corporation and multiple other defendants in the their wrongful-death action based on their decedents' exposure to asbestos in their work environment. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for the death of their decedents through the contamination of the decedents' work sites. During the pendency of the proceedings, some of the defendants filed for bankruptcy. When those insolvent defendants moved to sever themselves from case due to the stay provisions under the bankruptcy code (and ultimately be dismissed), Plaintiffs fought to keep the action against all defendants together, arguing that the asbestos claims were one single cause of action that could not be split. The solvent defendants moved for a summary judgement to dismiss the case, arguing there was insufficient evidence to indicate the decedents had been exposed to any asbestos-containing projects manufactured or supplied by each defendant. The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment to all defendants, and Plaintiffs appealed. Upon careful review of the trial record and the applicable legal authorities, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to all defendants. View "Bradberry v. Carrier Corp." on Justia Law

Randy Fielding petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Walker Circuit Court to vacate its order denying his motion for summary judgment and to enter a summary judgment based on his claim to State immunity. In November 2004, Debra Jackson and Jerry Jackson sued Fielding, individually and in his capacity as a deputy sheriff, after he entered their property and shot their dog while on duty. The complaint alleged claims of negligence, wantonness, the tort of outrage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass to person, and trespass on property. The Jacksons sought "compensatory, actual, incidental, and punitive damages, plus attorney fees." Fielding moved for summary judgment, arguing that because he was acting within the line and scope of his employment as a sheriff's deputy at the time of the incident, he was entitled to State immunity from the Jacksons' suit. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Fielding established a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus. Therefore, the Court granted his petition and issue the writ. View " Jackson v. City of Cordova" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court addressed the validity of a circuit court order that granted Pamela and Robert Washington a new trial. In an earlier action, the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus on petition of John Limerick, which directed the trial court to vacate its order that granted the Washngtons' motion for a new trial. The Court issued the writ on the basis that the Washington's motion was entered after the 90-day period referred to in Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P., thus depriving the trial court of jurisdiction in the case. While the Supreme Court was considering the validity of the trial court's new-trial order in that earlier case, the Washingtons filed a motion for relief from judgment in the present case which related back to their motion in the earlier action. On January 7, 2011, upon release of our opinion in Limerick, the trial court entered an order vacating its order granting a new trial in accordance with our instructions but simultaneously setting the Washingtons' pending Rule 60(b) motion for a hearing. Approximately six months later, on July 1, 2011, the trial court once again ordered a new trial, purportedly based this time on Rule 60(b). Subsequently, Limerick petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its second new-trial order. Once again, the Supreme Court granted the petition and issued the writ. View "Washington v. Limerick" on Justia Law

The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut appealed a judgment in which it was ordered to pay $251,913.91 to Willie A. Miller. Smith House Movers, Inc. (Smith), was hired was hired to move houses located in the path of road construction to be performed. Miller entered into a contract with Smith to purchase one of the houses and to move it from Red Bay to Vina. The contract provided that Smith was to move the house, pour a foundation, and place the house on the new foundation. Smith cut the house into two pieces and delivered the first piece. However, the foundation was improperly poured and did not fit, and the house had been damaged in the move. Ultimately Miller had to hire another company to complete the move and repair the damage. Miller then sued Smith alleging breach of contract, negligence and wantonness. Smith did not answer or appear, and Miller moved to a default judgment against Smith. In an attempt to collect the amount of the default judgment, Miller sent a copy to Smith's general liability insurer, Travelers. As Miller tried to get Travelers to respond to its demand, Miller learned that Smith had declared bankruptcy. Two years following the default judgment, the bankruptcy trustee lifted its stay on Smith's affairs to allow him to collect on the default judgment to the extent that the insurance coverage would allow. Travelers subsequently denied the claim. Miller then sued Travelers for payment. Travelers moved for summary judgment to dismiss Miller's claim, arguing that the general liability policy did not provide coverage based on the terms in the policies. The trial court denied the motion, and eventually entered judgment against the company. Travelers then appealed to the Supreme Court. The issue before the Court was whether the notice of the original lawsuit was timely. The Court found that because Miller's knowledge of Smith's certificate of insurance from the underlying lawsuit put Miller on notice that he should have notified Travelers of the default judgment. As such, the Court concluded that Miller was barred from recovering under Smith's policies. The Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Miller" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Ronald Browning and Susan Browning, Bubba Beck and Debbie Beck, Allen Caprara and Pam Caprara, Bobby Fayet and Cindy Fayet, David Kennamer and Brad Kennamer, Steve Russell and Melinda Russell, and Gary Strickland and Jennifer Strickland sued Jeff Cornelius, among others, alleging various claims related to investments they made in corporations in which Cornelius was allegedly a principal. The trial court entered a default judgment against Cornelius based upon his purported failure to appear for his deposition, awarding the plaintiffs a total of $975,000 in damages. Cornelius moved the trial court pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b) to set aside the default judgment, arguing that he had not received notice that the motion for a default judgment had been filed. After a hearing, the trial court denied Cornelius's motion to set aside the default judgment, and Cornelius appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's judgment was inconsistent with due process and was therefore void. Cornelius was entitled to have the default judgment set aside, and accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Cornelius v. Browning" on Justia Law

Defendants Springhill Hospitals, Inc., Dennis Rushing, Ashley Flemming and Janel Ostriehmerer appealed a judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff Dimitrios Critopoulos. Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital for a heart catheterization. While in the hospital's cardiac-intervention unit, Defendant Rushing noticed discoloration and blisters on Plaintiff's neck and spine. Nineteen days after he was admitted for cardiac care, Plaintiff was released from the hospital. Plaintiff was subsequently admitted to a different infirmary and treated for the discoloration and blisters, which were found to be ulcers. He filed a medical-malpractice action against Defendants for failing to treat the ulcers when he was under their care for the catheterization. Defendants alleged on appeal to the Supreme Court that errors at trial warranted a reversal of the outcome. The Supreme Court reviewed the trial court record and applicable authority, and concluded that the trial court exceeded its discretion when it ruled in favor of Plaintiff. The Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for the entry of a judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendants. View "Springhill Hospitals, Inc. v. Critopoulos " on Justia Law

In separate petitions, the Hampton Insurance Agency and Ginger Spencer, Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company and Ashland General Agency all defendants in an action filed by Mary Alice Patton, d/b/a Hole in the Wall Lounge, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to transfer the action to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. Ms. Patton purchased insurance for her lounge from Ms. Spencer, an independent insurance agent for Hampton. At issue was the nature and extent of the coverage Ms. Patton sought. The lounge was destroyed by fire in 2009. Upon filing her insurance claim, Ms. Patton was informed that her policy did not include coverage for property damage. Accordingly, Ms. Patton sued because "defendants were negligent and/or wanton in their procurement of full coverage insurance for [Patton] on her lounge building and its contents." Hampton responded with a motion to dismiss or in the alternative, to transfer the case on grounds that the case was filed in an improper venue. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the defendant insurance companies met the requirements for the writ of mandamus. The Court directed the trial court to vacate its order denying defendants' motions to transfer, and to enter orders granting those motions to transfer to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. View "Patton v. Hampton Insurance Agency" on Justia Law