Jean Brown

Drue Soti sued his employer Lowe's and its workers' compensation claims handler SRS for the tort of outrage and fraudulent suppression after SRS initially denied authorization for surgery to treat a hernia that developed from one of Soti's prior back surgeries related to his on-the-job injury. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on these claims, and the appellate court affirmed that decision. The court reasoned that Soti failed to present substantial evidence of outrageous conduct or that SRS suppressed material facts with intent to deceive, noting instead that the denial stemmed from confusion over whether the hernia was causally connected to the compensable injury. The hernia surgery was eventually authorized by court order after Soti filed suit, but that did not support the tort claims.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure

In Ex Parte Covington Pike Dodge, Inc., the case involved a lawsuit filed in Alabama by Lana Henderson against Covington Pike, a Tennessee car dealership, alleging negligent entrustment and supervision after a vehicle it sold was involved in an accident in Alabama that injured Henderson. Covington Pike, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Tennessee, sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its denial of the motion to dismiss and to dismiss the claims against Covington Pike. The court reasoned that Covington Pike did not have sufficient contacts with Alabama to reasonably anticipate being haled into court there, as the sale occurred in Tennessee to a Mississippi resident and the dealership had no physical presence or other ties to Alabama.

proceduretorts & liability

In Leeman v. Cook's Pest Control, Inc., homeowners Gary and Kathryn Leeman sued Cook's Pest Control and its employees after discovering termite infestation and damage in their newly purchased home, alleging fraud, breach of warranty, negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The termite control agreement signed at closing contained a broad arbitration clause invoking the Federal Arbitration Act and waiving court remedies. The trial court granted Cook's motion to compel arbitration, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed on de novo review. The court held that the agreement evidenced a transaction involving interstate commerce and that the Leemans failed to prove the arbitration provision was unconscionable due to prohibitive costs, as their evidence of arbitration expenses in other cases was insufficient or inconclusive.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Mike Stewart, a former Marshall County commissioner, who was convicted of violating Alabama's ethics law by using his official position to hire a contractor for road work in exchange for kickback payments. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that the State's evidence provided minimally sufficient corroboration for the testimony of an accomplice witness under Ala. Code § 12-21-222. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the non-accomplice evidence failed to tend to connect Stewart to the offense and was therefore insufficient to support the conviction. As a result, the Court rendered a judgment of acquittal for Stewart.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, buyers Thomas and Grace Davis sued Terminix and its employee Gary Welch for fraud, negligence, wantonness, and suppression after discovering alleged damage from a prior termite infestation in a house they purchased, claiming reliance on Terminix's inspection report. The trial court denied Terminix's motion to compel arbitration under a clause in the real-estate purchase agreement between the Davises and the seller. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act applied because the transaction involved interstate commerce through multistate corporations and cross-state fund transfers, and that the Davises were equitably estopped from denying Terminix's right to enforce the broad arbitration provision covering disputes related to the agreement. The court reasoned that the claims arose directly from the purchase agreement and the relationship it created, making the arbitration clause enforceable against Terminix despite it not being a signatory to the contract.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a dispute between Harold Stewart, who operated Amoco gas stations under leases from New Properties, L.L.C., and New Properties along with its managing partner Lewis Webb. Stewart sued for breach of contract and fraud, alleging that New Properties failed to complete required build-out work on a Prattville station to allow a restaurant franchise, while New Properties counterclaimed for unpaid rent on both the Prattville and an Eden station. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for Stewart, awarding $250,000 in damages and rejecting the counterclaims. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that New Properties and Webb had not preserved their sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges for review because they failed to raise the issues in a postjudgment motion or obtain written findings of fact as required by Rule 52(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

In this case, Providian National Bank appealed a trial court order denying its motion to compel arbitration of tort claims brought by credit card holder Tina Conner, who alleged that Providian had wrongfully presented checks against her personal checking account without permission, resulting in claims including conversion, fraud, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial and remanded the case, holding that Providian had met its burden by showing the existence of a credit card agreement containing an arbitration provision that was added through a mailed notice in March 2001, which became effective because Conner did not opt out, and that the agreement involved interstate commerce. The court found that Conner failed to present any evidence that the arbitration provision was invalid or inapplicable, and it declined to address her argument that the underlying conduct constituted felonies making arbitration inappropriate due to lack of supporting authority or argument.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case arose from a 2000 automobile accident in Bibb County involving Bibb County residents Carl and Teresa Robinson and Jamie Denise Corley; the Robinsons sued Corley for negligence and their insurer State Farm for uninsured/underinsured-motorist benefits in the Bessemer Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court. State Farm and Corley moved to transfer the case, arguing improper venue, and after the trial court initially granted then denied the motions, the defendants petitioned for a writ of mandamus. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the petition and issued the writ, ordering transfer to the Bibb Circuit Court. The Court reasoned that venue in the Bessemer Division is statutorily limited to actions arising within its territorial boundaries, the accident did not arise there, and Bibb County was a proper venue as Corley's residence under Alabama Code § 6-3-2(a)(3), making transfer mandatory under § 6-3-21.

proceduretorts & liability

In Philadelphia American Life Ins. Co. v. Bender, plaintiff DeJurnitte Bender sued his health insurer Philadelphia American, its agent AHU, and others for breach of contract, fraud, and bad faith after the denial of claims for treatment of a heart condition under a policy issued in 1999. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration endorsement that was provided with the application, incorporated by reference into the policy, and mailed to Bender with the policy documents; the trial court denied the motions under Auvil v. Johnson. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that Bender was bound by the arbitration clause because his claims arose from the insurance contract that expressly included the endorsement, he had accepted benefits under the policy, and the facts differed from Auvil where the operative contract contained no arbitration provision.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

This case concerns J.L.N., who was convicted of second-degree statutory rape of a 15-year-old victim and later pled guilty to violating Alabama Code § 15-20-26(b) after the victim and her mother moved into his residence, which was within 1,000 feet of the victim's home. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, finding the residency restriction unconstitutional because it impinged on J.L.N.'s right to marry. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed that ruling, concluding that J.L.N. lacked standing to challenge the statute's constitutionality. The court reasoned that standing requires an actual injury to a legally protected right, but J.L.N. and the victim were never married, had made no attempt to marry, and had no constitutional right to cohabit outside of marriage.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the Alabama Constitution's ban on lotteries in Article IV, § 65, allows the legislature to authorize coin-operated amusement machines in which skill influences the outcome to some degree, or to apply Ala. Code § 13A-12-76 to games where skill does not predominate over chance. Ted's Game Enterprises argued that the plain language and prior law permitted regulation of such devices when chance was the dominant factor. The Alabama Supreme Court disagreed, holding that § 65 prohibits lotteries defined under the American Rule as schemes where chance predominates over skill, based on historical judicial interpretations, Blackstone's commentary, and the three-pronged test of prize, chance, and consideration. The Court emphasized that the constitutional text means what it says and rejected narrower views allowing any element of skill to exempt a game.

criminal law

The case involved co-lessees of Mobile property suing the Stremmels (Nevada residents who inherited their father's lease interest) for failing to pay their share of expenses, seeking recovery of over $64,000. The trial court dismissed the action with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, ruling that the notice of appeal was filed well after the 42-day deadline under Rule 4, Ala. R. App. P., and that their later motions under Rules 77(d), 59(e), and 60(b) were untimely and did not extend the appeal period or confer jurisdiction.

procedureproperty

This case concerned an employee injured in a work-related automobile accident who had collected workers' compensation benefits and then sought additional underinsured-motorist coverage from his employer's auto insurer. The trial court dismissed the claim against the insurer, concluding that the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act provided the employee's sole remedy. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, reasoning that the Act's exclusive-remedy provision does not bar recovery of underinsured-motorist benefits from a third-party insurer when the employee was injured by a non-employee tortfeasor. The Court relied on its prior decisions in Ex parte Carlton and Frazier v. St. Paul Ins. Co., which rejected earlier appellate authority that had prohibited such dual recoveries.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between adjoining property owners over the location, size, and maintenance of an easement along their shared boundary, as well as related issues of road construction and water drainage. In 1999, the trial court entered a final judgment establishing a 15-foot easement on either side of the property line and allocating responsibilities among the parties. Over three years later, in 2002, the trial court issued orders purporting to modify the easement size and responsibilities in response to ongoing contempt motions and noncompliance. The appellate court reversed the modification, holding that the 1999 judgment was final and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to substantively alter it more than 30 days after entry absent a timely post-judgment motion. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the original judgment.

propertyprocedure

This case arose from a long-standing dispute between Alabama counties and the state Department of Corrections over the timely transfer of convicted inmates from county jails to state facilities as required by statute and a 1998 settlement agreement. The Montgomery Circuit Court held the commissioner in contempt for delays and imposed daily monetary sanctions to be paid to the counties, along with attorney fees. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed two appeals as moot and held that the monetary sanctions violated the state's sovereign immunity under Section 14 of the Alabama Constitution, which bars suits against the state or its officials in their official capacities seeking damages. The court reasoned that such sanctions constituted an impermissible attempt to control state action through judicial coercion in violation of separation of powers.

criminal lawprocedure

Faye Hall sued Dolgencorp, owner of a Dollar General store, for negligence and wantonness after liquid drain cleaner spilled from a shelf onto her face, causing burns. The trial court granted judgment as a matter of law on the wantonness claim but denied it on negligence, leading to a $100,000 jury verdict for Hall. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that Hall failed to present substantial evidence of actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition, as required in premises-liability cases. The court reasoned that the store had not created the condition, lacked actual knowledge of the misplaced bottle with a loose cap, and conducted reasonable periodic inspections (recovery) that precluded imputing constructive notice. Because notice is an essential element of the claim, the trial court should have granted the motion for judgment as a matter of law on negligence.

torts & liability

The case concerned whether Rodericus Heard's appeal from his murder and capital murder convictions was timely filed after the trial court continued his motion for a new trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals had dismissed the appeal, concluding that the motion was denied by operation of law after 60 days under Rule 24.4, Ala. R.Crim. P., because the record did not sufficiently show the required consent to the continuance. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the express consent of the parties appeared in the record when the motion was filed and that the trial court's March 13, 2002, order properly carried the motion to a date certain, so the notice of appeal was timely.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a former Wal-Mart employee, Peter Gregory Hepp, who sued the company for retaliatory discharge under Alabama law after being fired shortly after settling a workers' compensation claim for a back injury. Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, arguing that an earlier unemployment benefits hearing had already determined the termination was due to misconduct, not retaliation. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion, holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevented Hepp from relitigating the reason for his discharge because the issue had been fully litigated in the administrative proceeding with the same parties. The court reasoned that Hepp had a full and fair opportunity to present evidence at the unemployment hearing, where the referee found misconduct connected with his work, making summary judgment appropriate for Wal-Mart.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved five co-owners of undivided interests in a 20-acre parcel in Baldwin County, Alabama, who were approached by the Pimperls about selling the land. Four owners executed purchase agreements and quitclaim deeds and returned them, but the fifth declined, after which three of the signers attempted to withdraw before any payment was finalized; the Pimperls recorded the deeds they had received and sued for a declaration that the agreements were binding and for partition. The trial court ruled that the executed documents formed enforceable contracts and ordered the Pimperls to pay the three owners their shares. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the unambiguous language of the purchase agreements conditioned the sale on all five owners agreeing to participate, so the contracts never became binding when fewer than five owners signed. Because the agreements were not ambiguous, the court construed them as a matter of law and concluded that the transaction could not proceed without unanimous participation.

property

The case involved a dispute between mobile home buyer Curtis Thomas and seller Harbor Village Home Center, Inc., after Thomas sued for alleged defects in the home, claiming fraud and breach of contract. Thomas had signed three separate documents at purchase, each containing arbitration provisions, including a retail installment contract with a merger clause, an acknowledgment, and a freestanding arbitration agreement. The trial court granted a motion to compel arbitration under the terms of the freestanding agreement. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the merger clauses in the retail contract required arbitration to proceed under its terms instead, applying the Federal Arbitration Act and AAA rules, and that Thomas had waived any unconscionability challenge by not raising it below.

business & regulatoryprocedure