Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In late 2005 or early 2006, Corey Culverhouse began constructing a house for himself on a five-acre lot in Hartford. He obtained a policy from Alfa Mutual Insurance Company to insure the house during the remainder of the construction process and after construction was completed. In 2009, a minor fire damaged the kitchen of the house. Culverhouse submitted a claim to Alfa, which paid for a remediation company to clean and repair the smoke damage caused by the fire. During this process, Culverhouse moved out of the house and into a barn on his property. After about two weeks of living in the barn, Culverhouse moved into a house he was constructing for eventual sale across the road from his house. Later that year, another fire damaged the house. This time, the fire could not be extinguished, and the house, its contents, and an adjacent swimming pool were completely destroyed. Culverhouse promptly informed Alfa. Alfa immediately questioned the Culverhouse's claim because he had not submitted with his claim an inventory of the contents of the house and supporting documentation, and he had not submitted any evidence supporting the large claim he had submitted for loss of use in the two-month period prior to the second fire. Culverhouse ultimately sued Alfa for payment of the claim. A hearing on the summary-judgment motion was held on in 2013, and the trial court granted Alfa's motion and dismissed each of Culverhouse's claims; the trial court also dismissed an Alfa counterclaim as moot. Culverhouse thereafter retained a new attorney and, on moved the trial court to alter, amend, or vacate its order. The trial court granted Culverhouse's motion in part and amended its summary-judgment order so as to exclude Culverhouse's breach-of-contract claim from the judgment, leaving it as the only remaining claim in the case. Alfa's argument on appeal did not relate to the merits of Culverhouse's breach-of-contract claim. Rather, it concerned only whether the trial court acted properly by amending its summary-judgment order to resurrect that claim in response to Culverhouse's motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "ALFA Mutual Insurance Co. v. Culverhouse " on Justia Law

Defendants Dr. Gerald Hodge and Tombigbee Healthcare Authority d/b/a Bryan W. Whitfield Memorial Hospital separately petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the Marengo Circuit Court to dismiss the claims asserted against them by Gertha and David Tucker. In 2012, Gertha sued Dr. Hodge, Tombigbee, and others, alleging claims under the Alabama Medical Liability Act. Gertha alleged that Dr. Hodge performed a hysterectomy on her in 2005; that Dr. Hodge negligently failed to account for and to remove a surgical hemostat clamp from her abdomen; she did not discover the presence of the clamp until 2011 when she first started experiencing pain; and that as the proximate result of the negligent failure to remove the clamp she was made to suffer pain, life- threatening medical problems, including severe infections, and mental anguish. "Although the situation with which [the Supreme Court was] presented here [did] not involve the statute-of-limitations defense in the context of fictitious-party practice and the relation-back doctrine, the defendants . . . [were] faced with the extraordinary circumstance of having to further litigate this matter after having demonstrated from the face of the plaintiff's complaint a clear legal right to have the action against them dismissed based on the four-year period of repose found in 6-5-482(a). Having concluded that an appeal pursuant to Rule 5 or an appeal from a final judgment following further litigation is not an adequate remedy in this case, [the Court] conclude[d], based on the particular circumstances of this case, that mandamus is necessary in order to avoid the injustice that would result from the unavailability of any other adequate remedy."View "Tucker, Jr. v. Tombigbee Healthcare Authority " on Justia Law

Michelin North America, Inc. ("Michelin"), petitioned the Supreme Court for writs of mandamus to direct the Mobile Circuit Court: (1) to vacate its order allowing plaintiff Betty Brown to conduct an on-site inspection of Michelin's Ardmore, Oklahoma, tire-manufacturing facility (case no. 1121330); and (2) to vacate its order compelling Michelin to answer certain interrogatories and to comply with certain document requests propounded by Brown (case no. 1121341). Brown and her husband, George were traveling in Mobile when the tire mounted on the rear passenger side of their 1992 Ford Explorer sport-utility vehicle failed, causing an automobile accident in which George was killed and Brown was injured. Upon review of the circuit court record, the Supreme Court granted Michelin's petition in case no. 1121330 and granted the petition in part in case no. 1121341. View "Brown v. Michelin North America, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Deborah Voltz, Jasmin Voltz, and Princess Turner appealed a circuit court order dismissing their action against Cameron Dyess. Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Dyess alleging Dyess had negligently and wantonly caused an automobile accident in which the plaintiffs were injured. Plaintiffs attempted service of process on Dyess by certified mail. This service of process was returned unclaimed. A few days later, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. A few months later, plaintiffs attempted to serve the amended complaint on Dyess, this time through personal service by the sheriff. A month after that, without giving notice to plaintiffs, the trial court entered an order dismissing the case for lack of service. On the same date, plaintiffs filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the order of dismissal. After making their motion, the sheriff's summons was returned indicating nonservice. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to alter, and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred when it dismissed the action without giving at least 14 days' notice to the plaintiffs that their case was subject to dismissal for failure to effect service. View "Voltz v. Dyess " on Justia Law