Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Walter Energy, Inc., appealed a circuit court order that dismissed claims it had asserted against investor Julian Treger, his firm Audley Capital Advisors LLP, and other associated investment entities (collectively, "the Audley defendants") stemming from their alleged involvement in a scheme to improperly manipulate the share price of Walter Energy stock. Walter Energy sued the Audley defendants alleging various claims stemming from their alleged involvement in a "pump and dump" scheme to manipulate the share price of Walter Energy stock. After affording Walter Energy three opportunities to amend its complaint, the trial court dismissed all the claims on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds. Walter Energy thereafter appealed the dismissal of two of its claims to the Alabama Supreme Court; however, upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the dismissal of those claims was proper, and the judgment of the trial court was accordingly affirmed. View "Walter Energy, Inc. v. Audley Capital Advisors, LLP" on Justia Law

Baldwin Mutual Insurance Company appealed a circuit court order certifying the action filed against it by Gloria McCain as a class action. McCain owned a house in Montgomery on which she held a homeowner's insurance policy issued by Baldwin Mutual. That policy provided that any covered property losses would be settled "at actual cash value at the time of loss but not exceeding the amount necessary to repair or replace the damaged property." In July 2005, McCain's house was damaged as the result of a windstorm. She filed a claim with Baldwin Mutual, and Baldwin Mutual thereafter retained an independent adjuster to examine McCain's damaged property and to prepare an estimate to repair the damage. Baldwin Mutual paid McCain's claim in accordance with the estimate prepared by the adjuster. Pursuant to a work-authorization form signed by McCain, Baldwin Mutual paid the funds directly to McCain's contractor. In June 2006, McCain filed another claim after her house suffered damage as a result of a lightning strike. After the same adjuster prepared an estimate, Baldwin Mutual paid the new claim in accordance with the adjuster's estimate. The genesis of the claims underlying this suit was that Baldwin Mutual had wrongfully been reducing the amount paid on claims made on actual-cash-value polices inasmuch as its practice was to deduct some amount for depreciation not only of the damaged materials and the labor costs of initially installing those damaged materials (based on their condition prior to the covered damage and their expected life span), but also of the labor costs associated with the removal of the damaged materials. It was improper and impossible to depreciate those labor costs, McCain argued, because they had not previously been incurred at some defined time in the past; rather, they were being incurred at the time of the current repair. Noting that hundreds or thousands of Baldwin Mutual policyholders were likely negatively affected by Baldwin Mutual's practices in this regard, McCain sought class action certification of her claims. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the class certification, finding that the trial court here exceeded its discretion with a definition proposed by McCain without giving Baldwin Mutual the opportunity to oppose the certification of the proposed class at a hearing conducted for that purpose pursuant to statute. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Baldwin Mutual Ins. Co. v. McCain" on Justia Law

Dorothy Crusoe and her granddaughter, Erica Boyd, by and through her mother and next friend, Latricia Witherspoon (collectively, "Crusoe"), appealed a circuit court order denying their motion for a new trial. This case stemmed from an automobile accident that occurred in Bessemer. Crusoe sued Davis under a negligence theory seeking damages for medical expenses and for past and future pain and suffering. Dorothy Crusoe additionally sought damages for lost wages. After hearing the evidence and being instructed on negligence, the jury returned a verdict for Davis. Crusoe filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. She appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in not allowing the policeman who prepared the accident report to testify as to the contents of that report, which testimony, Crusoe alleged, would refute Davis's testimony that her vehicle was not in motion at the time of the accident. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Crusoe v. Davis" on Justia Law

Ruth Mary Higgins Baker ("Ruth") petitioned the Supreme Court for review the Court of Civil Appeals' affirmance, without an opinion, of the judgment of the Circuit Court which denied her petition to be appointed the personal representative of the estate of her mother Ruth G. Higgins. The Supreme Court granted certiorari review to determine whether the Court of Civil Appeals erred in affirming the circuit court's judgment and, specifically, whether the circuit court had obtained jurisdiction over Higgins's estate. After careful consideration of the trial court and appellate court proceedings, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remanded the case for that court to dismiss the appeal and to instruct the circuit court to vacate its orders removing the matter from the probate court, denying Ruth's petition for appointment as the administrator with the will annexed of Higgins's estate and appointing another administrator instead. View "Ex parte Ruth Mary Higgins Baker." on Justia Law

John Harper, an incarcerated inmate, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court to review the circuit court's denial of his latest motion for sentence reconsideration. Harper was convicted in 1986 of first-degree armed robbery. Based on that conviction and a prior felony conviction, the circuit court sentenced him as a habitual felony offender to what in 1986 was a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole. Because the circuit court did not consider all the factors and evidence, including records of the Department of Corrections, that Harper presented with his "Kirby" motion, the Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court did not consider the totality of the circumstances. For the same reasons, the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming the circuit court's order denying Harper's Kirby motion. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment and directed that court to remand the case to the circuit court for it to reconsider Harper's Kirby motion. "We note in conclusion that the window for the review of Kirby motions has been closing since the repeal of 13A-5-9.1, effective March 1, 2014. After 28 years of incarceration, Harper is faced with his last opportunity to take advantage of 13A-5-9.1. He has done exactly what a previous court said he must do for reconsideration of his sentence as a current nonviolent convicted offender. Justice demands that he have an opportunity provided by that law for reconsideration of his sentence." View "Ex parte John Alfred Harper." on Justia Law

Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company ("Travelers") appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Dianne and Martin Gray in the Grays' action arising from injuries Dianne suffered as the result of a motor-vehicle accident. In 2010, Lawana Coker and Dianne were involved in a motor-vehicle accident in Elmore County; Coker was without motor-vehicle insurance at the time of the accident. Two years later, the Grays filed in the trial court a three-count complaint naming as defendants Coker and Travelers and a fictitiously named defendant. Travelers answered the complaint, denying the material allegations therein and asserting certain affirmative defenses. Coker, however, failed to answer the complaint. In 2013, the Grays moved the trial court to enter a default judgment in their favor and against Coker, requesting that the trial court assess damages in the amount of $500,000 for Dianne and $50,000 for Martin. The Grays' motion requested no relief as to Travelers. Shortly thereafter, the Grays filed a new summary-judgment motion in which, for the first time, they sought relief against Travelers. The Grays did not base their summary judgment motion against Travelers on the ground that there was no genuine issue of fact as to whether tortious conduct by Coker caused them to suffer injury. Instead, they based their summary-judgment motion against Travelers solely on the fact that they previously had obtained a default judgment against Coker. In this regard, the Grays argued that they were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law against Travelers because, they said, "Travelers as a party defendant had notice and adequate opportunity to intervene and present any defenses and arguments necessary to protect its position with respect to the entry of or the amount of damages in the Default Judgment. By failing to do so, Defendant Travelers legally is bound by the judgment." After review, the Supreme Court reversed: because Travelers as the Grays' UM carrier, was not bound by the default judgment entered against Coker, Travelers was not required to submit evidence in opposition to a motion for a summary judgment that relied solely on that default judgment. Consequently, the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of the Grays and against Travelers. View "Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co. v. Gray" on Justia Law

The Water Works Board of the City of Birmingham ("the Board") petitions for a writ of mandamus to direct the Jefferson Circuit Court to vacate its order granting the motion filed by the Alabama Surface Mining Commission ("ASMC") seeking to transfer the underlying action to Walker County. Shepherd Bend, LLC, joined ASMC's transfer motion. Upon review of the briefs submitted in this case, the Supreme Court concluded the Board demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief it sought; venue was indeed proper in Jefferson County. Therefore, the Court granted the petition and issued the writ directing the circuit court to vacate its order transferring the action to Walker County. View "Ex parte Water Works Board of the City of Birmingham." on Justia Law

Edwin B. Lumpkin, Jr. appealed several Circuit Court orders dismissing three cases he had initiated challenging property-tax assessments made by the Jefferson County Board of Equalization and Adjustments. Lumpkin owned and operated Metro Mini Storage, a chain of self-storage facilities with locations throughout the Birmingham metropolitan area. In 2012, Lumpkin received notice from Jefferson County regarding the assessed value of three of his properties located in that county. Believing the assessed values of these properties to be too high, Lumpkin elected to protest their valuation, and the Board heard his arguments. Acting pro se, Lumpkin filed three appeals in the Jefferson Circuit Court (one for each of the three locations), arguing that the Board's decisions did not reflect the true market value of the properties and that a reduction in assessed value was warranted based on the evidence he had presented. Because Lumpkin's appeals are governed by section 40-3-25 and because he failed to comply with all the requirements of section 40-3-25 for perfecting his appeals, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court properly dismissed the cases. View "Lumpkin, Jr. v. Alabama" on Justia Law

The City of Florence, the Civil Service Board of the City of Florence ("the CSB") and Keith McDaniel appealed separately a circuit court judgment after a jury rendered its verdict in favor of William T. Ezell. In mid 2011, two positions for promotion to the job of battalion chief became available within the Florence Fire and Rescue Department. Benjamin Cochran, Melvin Brown, Tim Clanton, John T. Muse, McDaniel, and Ezell applied for the positions. The CSB conducted interviews with the candidates on September 1, 2011. Afterward, it promoted Cochran and McDaniel to the two battalion-chief positions. On September 12, 2011, Ezell filed a two-count complaint against the City and the CSB in the Lauderdale Circuit Court. A month later, the City and the CSB filed an answer in which they denied Ezell's allegations. They also asserted that Ezell had failed to join certain indispensable parties. The City and CSB simultaneously filed a motion to dismiss count 1 of the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7), Ala. R. Civ. P., arguing that all six applicants were indispensable parties. They then asked that count 1 of the complaint be dismissed or that Ezell be required to add Cochran, Brown, Clanton, Muse, and McDaniel as defendants. The trial court ordered Ezell to amend his complaint to make Cochran, Brown, Clanton, Muse, and McDaniel parties to the suit. Ezell amended count 1 of his complaint and also added the other applicants as defendants. The City and the CSB filed an answer to the amended complaint in which they denied Ezell's allegations and argued that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The jury returned the following verdict: "We are not reasonably satisfied that the decision of the [CSB] was correct and we find that the following 2 individuals should be promoted to Battalion Chief (pick two) ... Benjamin Cochran ... William Ezell." The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict and ordered that the status quo be maintained during the pendency of any appellate proceedings. The City, the CSB, and McDaniel filed posttrial motions, which the trial court denied. McDaniel appealed to the Supreme Court (docketed as case no. 1130372). The City and the CSB also appealed to the Supreme Court (docketed as case no. 1130373). Because Ezell failed to demonstrate that he had a right to appeal the CSB's decision, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain his appeal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed these appeals with instructions to the trial court to vacate its judgment. View "City of Florence v. Ezell" on Justia Law

Donald Porter, Marc Porter, Porter Capital Corporation, Porter Bridge Loan Company, Inc., Lowerline Corporation, Capital Partners Leasing, Inc., and Capital Partners Leasing, LLC (referred to collectively as "the Porter defendants"), appealed the denial of their motion to compel arbitration of the claims asserted against them by Byron Porter Williamson. Marc and Donald Porter are brothers; they founded Porter Capital Corporation in 1991 and thereafter established the related companies Porter Bridge Loan Company, Inc., Lowerline Corporation, CapitalPartners Leasing, Inc., and CapitalPartners Leasing, LLC. In 1992, the Porters hired their nephew Williamson as an employee of the Porter companies. In 2004, Williamson, Marc Porter, and Donald Porter entered into a shareholders agreement that made Williamson a 10% shareholder in Porter Capital Corporation, Porter Bridge Loan Company, Inc., Lowerline Corporation, and CapitalPartners Leasing, Inc. Following his termination and resignation as a shareholder of the corporations and a member of the limited liability company, Williamson demanded that his shares in the corporations and his interest in the limited-liability company be purchased by the Porter companies pursuant to the agreement. The parties, however, were unable to agree on the value of Williamson's shares and interest. Williamson sued Marc Porter, Donald Porter, and the Porter companies. Citing the arbitration provision of the agreement, the Porter defendants moved to dismiss the action without prejudice or to stay discovery and compel arbitration. Williamson opposed the motion, arguing that some or all of his claims fell within the specific-performance exception of the arbitration provision in the agreement. Following a hearing on the Porter defendants' motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration, the trial court issued an order denying the Porter defendants' motion. The Porter defendants appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Porter defendants' motion to compel arbitration insofar as that motion related to Williamson's request for specific performance and injunctive relief. With regard to Williamson's remaining claims seeking rescission and alleging misrepresentation and suppression and conversion, the Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court either to dismiss those claims or to grant the Porter defendants' motion to compel arbitration of them. View "Porter v. Williamson" on Justia Law