Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2006, plaintiff Robert Kyle Morris, a licensed insurance agent, was working for his father's independent insurance agency, the Morris Insurance Agency ("Morris Insurance"). At some point, Morris contacted one of the Farmers entities about becoming a Farmers agent. Morris testified that he initially became interested in working as a Farmers agent because Farmers had a policy whereby a Farmers agent could place insurance with a different company if a customer was not eligible for insurance issued by Farmers or if Farmers refused to underwrite a policy for the customer. He further testified that he had not been looking to disaffiliate himself from his father's insurance agency and that he had told a Farmers recruiter that he did not want to cut off the working relationship he had with his father. Morris also testified that, when he agreed to become a Farmers agent, he signed several different agreements; that nothing in any of those agreements or documents indicated that his relationship with his father's agency constituted a conflict of interest; that the documents given to him did not say anything contrary to what he had been told by any recruiter, or that any representations made to him by the agents of Farmers were false. Despite signing an agent agreement, and having been recruited, Morris' contract was ultimately terminated for conflict of interest. Morris sued Farmers, arguing that Farmers had fraudulently induced him to become a Farmers agent. The trial court ruled in Morris' favor, and Farmers appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court found Morris did not blindly rely on oral representations and ignore the terms of his contract. "The only information contrary to what Morris had been told was buried in a 200-page manual among dozens of other documents provided for training modules, and even longtime Farmers employees were not aware of the existence of the statement." Morris presented sufficient evidence of fraudulent inducement for the matter to be decided by the jury. Farmers' postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law, but the trial court did not make any findings regarding Farmers' request for a remittitur of the punitive-damages award. The Court remanded this case for the trial court to conduct a hearing on the punitive-damages award. View "Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Morris" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs James Jordan, Sara Jordan Muschamp, and William Jordan (as representative of the estate of Emma K. Jordan, deceased) sued the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. ("TJF") for: (1) misrepresentation; (2) "slander, libel, and trade infringement"; (3) fraud; (4) wantonness; (5) suppression; (6) negligence; (7) breach of contract; and (8) tortious interference with business relations. TJF was a nonprofit organization that owned and curated a museum in Monticello, the historic home of Thomas Jefferson. In 1957, Juliet Cantrell lent TJF a "filing press" for display at Monticello. Cantrell passed away in 1976 and bequeathed the filing press, which was then on loan to TJF, and the dressing table to Emma. In 1977, Emma lent TJF the dressing table for use in the museum. Certain "loan agreements" were executed with TJF when the furniture was lent to TJF, and there were subsequent loan agreements executed by Emma, James, and Sara. The loan agreements were silent as to whether TJF had the authority to perform any "conservation" work on the furniture without first obtaining permission from plaintiffs. In November 2007, plaintiffs removed the furniture from Monticello and shipped it to Sotheby's in New York with the intent to sell it. Sotheby's "research consultants" questioned the authenticity of the dressing table, and determined that the filing press was not in sufficiently original condition to be offered for bid. Sotheby's declined to place either piece of furniture for sale at auction; according to plaintiffs, Sotheby's found that the value of the dressing table had been "destroyed" and that the filing press then had a market value of $20,000 to $30,000, whereas "its fair market value would be around $4 million" had TFJ not performed conversation work on it. Only the claims (6), (7), and (8) above were presented to the jury; the remaining claims were disposed of before the case went to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of TJF on all three counts, and the trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, arguing, in pertinent part, that TJF did not disclose that it had insurance and that, therefore, "the venire was not properly qualified as to insurance." The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion. TJF appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in granting plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. After review, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment insofar as it granted the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, and affirmed the trial court's judgment insofar as it granted TJF's motion for a JML on the plaintiffs' suppression claim. View "Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. v. Jordan" on Justia Law

Devonte Acosta was convicted of first-degree burglary and was sentenced to 156 months in prison. Acosta argued to the Court of Criminal Appeals that the trial court improperly prevented him from presenting his defense that he was not present during the burglary at trial by refusing to admit certain statements into evidence. After concluding that Acosta's argument was properly preserved for appellate review, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court erred in refusing to admit the statements in question. The Court reasoned that the trial court's strict application of the hearsay rule deprived Acosta of the ability to present a complete defense. Upon review of the record, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that Acosta's fundamental rights to a fair trial and to due process were not violated by the trial court's refusal to admit the statements into evidence. The court of Criminal Appeals was therefore reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Ex parte State of Alabama." on Justia Law

Engineering Design Group, LLC, and David Stovall, the principal of Engineering Design Group, LLC (collectively, "EDG"), and Building & Earth Sciences, Inc. ("BES"), filed separate petitions to the Alabama Supreme Court, each seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the St. Clair Circuit Court ("the trial court") to enter an order transferring the action filed in the trial court by plaintiffs Delaney Exchange, LLC, and Springdale Stores Exchange, LLC, to the Shelby Circuit Court. After review, the Supreme Court concluded EDG and BES carried their burden of showing that Shelby County's connection to the action was strong, and St. Clair County's connection to the action was considerably weak. Thus, the trial court exceeded its discretion in refusing to transfer the case to the Shelby Circuit Court, and the interest of justice required the transfer. View "Ex parte Engineering Design Group, LLC" on Justia Law

This case concerned the application of the relation-back doctrine to wrongful-death claims. The trial court allowed James O. Kidd, Sr., the personal representative of the estate of Madeline Kidd, to use relation back to sustain his claims against various health-care providers. Some of those providers, defendants Mobile Infirmary Association d/b/a Mobile Infirmary Medical Center, Dr. Roger Alvarado, Dr. Barbara Mitchell, and IMC-Diagnostic and Medical Clinic, P.C., sought review of the trial court's order by filing separate petitions for permissive appeals. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in permitting the relation-back doctrine, reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mobile Infirmary Association v. Estate of Madeline Kidd" on Justia Law

Regions Bank appealed a final judgment dismissing its action against BP P.L.C., BP Corporation North America, Inc., and BP America Inc. (collectively, "BP"). In 2010, an explosion and fire occurred aboard the Deepwater Horizon, an offshore-drilling rig, located off the coast of Louisiana. The incident led to a massive discharge of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, which, in turn, spawned an expansive clean-up and response operation by BP and various governmental agencies. Regions owned coastal real property located in Baldwin County, Alabama. Regions filed this trespass action against BP in Alabama Circuit Court, alleging BP occupied Regions' property, without authorization, for its spill-response operation; that BP moved equipment and structures onto the property without permission; and that BP erected fences and barriers on the property, again, without permission. Regions further alleged that BP stored hazardous materials and waste on the property and that those hazardous materials and waste damaged the property. BP filed a Rule 12(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., "motion to dismiss" Regions' trespass action on the ground that it was subject to the class-action settlement approved in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) and, therefore, that dismissal was warranted on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata. After review, the Alabama Supreme Court found "clear and unequivocal" exceptions to the MDL economic-and-property-damage-settlement class, and concluded that Regions was not a member of the settlement class. Therefore, its trespass claim was not adjudicated as part of the MDL class-action settlement. Accordingly, the Court reversed the circuit court for dismissing Regions' action on the ground of res judicata. View "Regions Bank v. BP P.L.C. et al." on Justia Law

Dannelly Enterprises, LLC ("Dannelly"), appealed a circuit court order granting a motion to compel arbitration filed by Palm Beach Grading, Inc. ("PBG"). In the fall of 2006, PBG entered into negotiations with Corvias Military Living, LLC, f/k/a Picerne Military Housing LLC; Picerne Construction/FRK, LLC; Rucker-Picerne Partners, LLC; and Rucker Communities, LLC (collectively, "the contractors"), to perform work on a project known as the Ft. Rucker RCI Family Housing, Munson Heights, Phase 1A, at Fort Rucker, Alabama. Apparently, in preparing to bid on the project, PBG contacted various subcontractors, including Dannelly, to get bids for various aspects of the project that PBG would be responsible for if it entered into an agreement with the contractors to complete the project. Although the work order issued by PBG stated that "[a] Sub-contract will be created by PBG for billing purposes," neither party submitted into evidence such a contract between PBG and Dannelly. PBG argued that Donnelly accepted benefits under existing contracts because Dannelly was hired by PBG to perform work on the project and was paid for the work it completed. The Supreme Court found, however, that PBG did not present any argument as to why it believed Dannelly was not simply operating under and benefiting from the agreement between PBG and Dannelly, which was memorialized by PBG's work order. The Court concluded that PBG failed to demonstrate that the arbitration provision in the master subcontract agreement applied to the third-party claims it asserted against Dannelly. Furthermore, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dannelly and PBG entered into PBG's standard subcontract agreement. The case was reversed and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Dannelly Enterprises, LLC v. Palm Beach Grading, Inc." on Justia Law

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for certiorari review of the Court of Civil Appeals' decision affirming the trial court's judgment ordering State Farm to pay an attorney fee based on a common-fund theory for the recovery of the moneys advanced by State Farm to James Ross Pritchard, Jr., pursuant to "Lambert v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.," (576 So. 2d 160 (Ala. 1991)). Pritchard sued Broderick McCants, State Farm (Pritchard's uninsured/underinsured-motorist ("UIM") insurer), and others seeking damages for injuries Pritchard suffered in an automobile accident with a vehicle being operated by McCants. Applying the Court's determination that a UIM insurer does not have a subrogation interest in a "Lambert" advance to the facts of this case, the Court held that State Farm did not have a subrogation interest in the $50,000 it advanced to Pritchard pursuant to "Lambert" and, consequently, that Pritchard's recovery from the tortfeasor of the "Lambert" advance did not create a common fund from which State Farm was required to pay its share of Pritchard's attorney fee. View "Ex parte State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company." on Justia Law

In 2004, Michael Britt purchased a Beneteau brand sailboat. Michael had insured the sailboat with St. Paul pursuant to a Seahorse Underwriters Boat Insurance Policy that provided coverage limits of $85,000 for "accidental direct physical loss of or damage to [the sailboat] ... except as specifically stated or excluded in this policy." From 2004 onward, the sailboat served as Michael's residence in Florida; Michael had no other established residence. In early September 2011, Michael telephoned Willis Britt, "Britt," his father, and told Britt that he had accepted a job driving a commercial truck and that he had to attend orientation for the new job in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Michael informed Britt that he planned to sail the sailboat from West Palm Beach, Florida, to Jacksonville, Florida, store the boat in Jacksonville, and rent a car in Jacksonville to drive to Oklahoma City for the orientation. On or around September 11, 2011, Michael set sail for Jacksonville. On September 15, 2011, the United States Coast Guard boarded the sailboat approximately one mile off the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida, for a "cold hit" inspection. That inspection revealed that the sailboat was seaworthy. There was no evidence of any severe weather in the Cape Canaveral area on September 15, 2011, on which date, Michael was supposed to check in with his father upon arrival in Jacksonville, but never did. In October 2011, Britt contacted St. Paul to report the sailboat as lost. In 2012, Britt was appointed conservator of Michael's estate by the Chilton Probate Court. Shortly thereafter, Britt filed a claim with St. Paul for the lost sailboat. St. Paul sent Britt a letter in which it declined coverage for the sailboat. The Supreme Court found that the "mysterious-disappearance" exclusion in Michael's insurance policy was not ambiguous, nor did it conflict with the 30-day provision; rather, the policy, when read as a whole, could accommodate both provisions (one providing coverage and one excluding coverage). Because the Court held that the mysterious-disappearance exclusion was unambiguous and does not conflict with the 30-day provision, and because there was no genuine issue of material fact concerning the disappearance of the sailboat, the trial court should have entered a summary judgment in St. Paul's favor. View "St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Britt" on Justia Law

Richard and Betty B. Chesnut petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion affirming the Madison Circuit Court's summary judgments in favor of the City of Huntsville, the Board of Zoning Adjustment of the City of Huntsville, Denton-Niemitz Realty, LLC, and Guild Building and Remodeling, LLC. In 1983, the Chesnuts purchased a house and the adjacent lot to the east of their house, which was in a Huntsville neighborhood that had been established in 1908. The neighborhood was zoned as a 'Resident 1-B' district. In October 2012, Denton-Niemitz purchased the house on the west side of the Chesnuts' house. Subsequently, Denton-Niemitz obtained a permit to raze the house it purchased. Denton-Niemitz hired Guild Building & Remodeling, LLC to demolish the Denton-Niemitz house. The city issued the permits and construction began on the new house. Richard Chesnut was concerned the new house did not comply with the applicable set-back line requirement, and requested the zoning code be enforced. When no action was taken, the Chesnuts filed suit. The Chesnuts argued that the Circuit Court erred in entering a summary judgment in the civil action because, they said, Jim McGuffey (the zoning-enforcement coordinator for the City) incorrectly interpreted Articles 12.2.4 and 73.7.4 of the City's zoning code; that, when McGuffey issued the permits, he used an "extralegal dictionary definition" of "developed" and "undeveloped"; that McGuffey ignored a mandate of the Huntsville City Council that he did not have the power to permit construction that did not conform with the zoning code; and that McGuffey and the City ignored well established rules of statutory construction and ignored their statutory mandate to administer ordinances according to their literal terms. After review, the Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals because the zoning enforcement coordinator's interpretation of the zoning ordinance was unreasonable. The Supreme Court affirmed in part the appellate court's judgment because the summary judgment and the Court of Civil Appeals' affirmance of that judgment was appropriate, not because the Chesnuts' appeal was untimely but because the Chesnuts' administrative appeal was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Ex parte Richard and Betty Chesnut." on Justia Law