Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Town & Country Property, L.L.C., and Town & Country Ford, ("T&C"), appealed a summary judgment in favor of Amerisure Insurance Company and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company which held that Amerisure was not obligated to pay a $650,100 judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of T&C and against Amerisure's insured, Jones-Williams Construction Company, because, the trial court reasoned, the faulty construction of the T&C facility upon which the judgment was based was not an "occurrence" covered under the commercial general-liability ("CGL") insurance policy Amerisure had issued Jones-Williams. In October 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed in part the judgment entered by the trial court, agreeing that faulty construction did not in and of itself constitute an occurrence for CGL-policy purposes and that, accordingly, "Amerisure was not required to indemnify Jones-Williams for the judgment entered against it insofar as the damages represented the costs of repairing or replacing the faulty work." However, the Court further recognized that if damages had been awarded T&C to compensate it for damage the faulty construction later caused to personal property or some otherwise nondefective portion of the T&C property, then "[t]hose damages would constitute 'property damage' resulting from an 'occurrence,' and they would be covered under the terms of the Amerisure policy ...." Upon a review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that on remand, a $392,600 judgment entered by the trial court was not supported by the evidence. The order ultimately entered by the trial court failed to specifically identify any personal property or nondefective portions of the T&C facility that were damaged as a result of the faulty construction. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment entered by the trial court on remand, and remanded the case once again to the trial court so that it could enter a final judgment in favor of T&C for $600. View "Town & Country Property, L.L.C. v. Amerisure Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Myrtis Hill sued Fairfield Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC ("Fairfield"); D&N, LLC ("D&N"); DTD HC, LLC ("DTD"); Donald T. Denz; Norbert A. Bennett; Aurora Cares, LLC; and Aurora Healthcare, LLC (collectively referred to as "the defendants"). Hill stated claims based upon the Alabama Medical Liability Act ("the AMLA"), arising out of the fact that she suffered a broken leg while being helped out of bed by a nursing assistant at a nursing home owned and operated by Fairfield ("Fairfield Nursing Home"). Before trial, on motion of the defendants, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of all the defendants except Fairfield. At trial, at the conclusion of Hill's case-in-chief, the trial court entered a judgment as a matter of law in favor of Fairfield. Hill appealed the judgments of the trial court as to all the defendants. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: Hill presented substantial evidence, including the testimony of a registered nurse and doctor that she suffered a broken leg and that this injury was caused by a breach of the applicable standard of care. Consequently, the trial court erred in entering a judgment as a matter of law in favor of Fairfield, and that judgment was due to be reversed. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Hill v. Fairfield Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioners George D. Green and Wanda Green, the plaintiffs in a personal-injury action pending in the Monroe Circuit Court, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct that court to vacate its order transferring the underlying action to the Conecuh Circuit Court. The complaint sought damages for assault and battery; it alleged that the defendants Paul Battle and Garth Morris "shot[] [George] with a shotgun." George sought damages for physical injuries and mental anguish; Wanda sought damages for loss of consortium. The complaint further alleged that the Greens and Morris were residents of Conecuh County and that Battle was a resident of Pensacola, Florida. Battle filed a motion seeking, among other things, a transfer of the case to Conecuh County. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that venue was proper in Monroe County; the Greens have thus demonstrated that the trial court erred in transferring the case. The Supreme Court granted the petition and directed the trial court to vacate its order. View "Green v. Morris" on Justia Law

East Alabama Medical Center ("EAMC") petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Randolph Circuit Court to transfer the action filed against it by John Tinney to the Lee Circuit Court. Tinney represented Jerry Benefield in a personal-injury action arising out of a motor-vehicle accident. Benefield was treated at EAMC for injuries he sustained in the accident. EAMC filed a hospital lien in Lee County for $3,361 against any recovery Benefield might receive in settlement of his personal-injury action. Tinney recovered a settlement for Benefield. As part of the settlement, Progressive Insurance Company issued a check made payable to EAMC and Tinney in the amount of $3,361. Tinney then filed the underlying lawsuit against EAMC in the Randolph Circuit Court, claiming that he had asked EAMC to allow him to receive 40% of the lien check as an attorney fee but that EAMC "failed and refused to negotiate the check or to agree on a division of the money." EAMC moved to transfer the action to Lee County stating that its principal office is located in Opelika, Lee County; that Lee County is where all actions taken by EAMC, such as telephone calls and letters, occurred; and that EAMC has no facilities and does no business by agent in Randolph County. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that EAMC proved that venue was not proper in Randolph County, therefore the trial court erred in denying EAMC's motion to transfer the case to Lee County. View "Tinney v. East Alabama Medical Center" on Justia Law

According to Braden Furniture Company, Inc., between 2003 and 2010, Bonnie Manning, an assistant bookkeeper, accessed Braden Furniture's accounting program and created over 200 unauthorized checks, totaling over $470,000, that she then deposited in her account at Union State Bank. The majority of the checks did not identify a payee. Braden Furniture sued Union State Bank, RBC Bank, and Manpower, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and wantonness and violations of sections 7-3-404(d), 7-3-405(b), and 7-3-406, Ala. Code 1975. Union State Bank moved for a summary judgment. The trial court entered summary judgment for the Bank. Upon review, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether provisions in the Alabama Uniform Commercial Code ("the UCC") displaced common-law claims of negligence and wantonness when a drawer seeks to recover the loss of payment for unauthorized checks. Braden Furniture contended that the trial court erred in holding that the provisions of the UCC displaced its common-law claims of negligence and wantonness because, allowing its common-law claims to proceed did not "create rights, duties and liabilities inconsistent" with the UCC. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not err in entering a summary judgment for Union State Bank in this regard. View "Braden Furniture Company, Inc. v. Union State Bank " on Justia Law

Black Warrior Electric Membership Corporation appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict for Ronald McCarter in McCarter's action seeking compensation for injuries he sustained when he contacted a power line owned and operated by Black Warrior. Black Warrior contended in its JML motions that there was no evidence indicating "that Black Warrior had actual or constructive notice that the height of the power line was defectively low so as to give Black Warrior reason to anticipate that a person, such as [McCarter], might come in contact with the power line." Although Black Warrior argued on appeal both that evidence of its liability was insufficient to present a jury question and that the verdict was against the weight and preponderance of the evidence, the resolution of this case turned on the sufficiency of the evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that McCarter failed to present substantial evidence that Black Warrior had constructive knowledge of the alleged defect in its lines before the time of the accident. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Black Warrior Electric Membership Corporation v. McCarter " on Justia Law

Defendants Randall Boudreaux, M.D., Don Ortego, and Coastal Anesthesia, P.C. appealed a $4,000,000 judgment against them, following a remittitur of a $20,000,000 jury verdict in favor of Paula Pettaway, as administratrix of the estate of Paulett Pettaway Hall, on her wrongful-death/medical-malpractice claim. Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court correctly denied the defendants' request for a new trial and appropriately refused to further remit the jury's punitive damages award. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Boudreaux v. Pettaway" on Justia Law

In December 2005, Charles Baggett and Diana Morris were involved in an automobile accident, as a result of which Baggett was injured. Baggett sued Morris, who was insured by Sagamore Insurance Company. Baggett added his underinsured-motorist ("UIM") carrier, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as a party to the action. The limit of State Farm's UIM policy was $60,000. Before Baggett commenced the action against Morris, State Farm paid Baggett $25,000, the limit of the liability policy issued by Sagamore to Morris, to protect its potential subrogation interest against Morris. At the time State Farm advanced the $25,000 to Baggett, Baggett executed an agreement entitled an "Advancement of Funds to Protect Future Subrogation Rights." State Farm opted out of the action. Following a jury trial, Baggett obtained a judgment against Morris for $181,046. Therefore, Baggett was entitled to $85,000--the total of the limits of both the Sagamore policy ($25,000) and the State Farm policy ($60,000). Sagamore paid $25,000; State Farm, rather than paying Baggett $35,000 and receiving credit pursuant to the "Advancement of Funds" agreement for the $25,000 it had advanced, mistakenly paid $60,000, resulting in an overpayment to Baggett of $25,000. As a result of the overpayment, the trial court ordered Baggett to reimburse State Farm $25,000, less a one-third attorney fee under the common-fund doctrine. State Farm appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, without an opinion. State Farm petitioned the Supreme Court seeking review of the application of the common-fund doctrine. Upon review, the Court found that State Farm was entitled to a refund of the overpayment, and that if an attorney fee was due Baggett's attorney with respect to all or part of the $85,000 actually owed in the aggregate by Sagamore and State Farm, then the fee should be taken from the $85,000, not from the $25,000 State Farm overpaid and as to which it was entitled to be reimbursed. View "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Baggett" on Justia Law

Carson Sweeney petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Circuit Court to vacate its order of May 26, 2011, insofar as the order granted Timmy Joe Holland's motion to strike Sweeney's demand for a trial by jury in Holland's trespass action against him. In 2010, Holland sued Sweeney, alleging that Sweeney had entered Holland's property and damaged it by, among other things, "remov[ing] trees, timber and other foliage, [and] soil"; "redirect[ing] water flow"; and "install[ing] drainage apparatuses." The complaint stated the following causes of action: "trespass - trespass to chattels," negligence, negligent supervision, and conversion. The circuit court ultimately entered an order that, among other things, granted in part and denied in part Holland's motion to strike Sweeney's answer and counter-complaint. In its order, the circuit court found that Sweeney's failure to file his answer and counter-complaint in a timely manner "was unreasonable and inherently prejudicial" to Holland and that "[g]ood cause has not been shown for said failure." Nonetheless, the circuit court denied Holland's motion insofar as it sought to strike Sweeney's answer and counter-complaint because, the circuit court said, "the interest of preserving a litigant's right of trial on the merits is paramount." However, the circuit court granted Holland's motion insofar as it sought to strike Sweeney's demand for a jury trial, concluding that Sweeney had "waived his right to demand a trial by jury." Sweeney filed a "motion for reconsideration, modification, new hearing, or in the alternative, motion to alter, amend or vacate" the order striking his jury-trial demand, which the circuit court denied. Sweeney then filed this petition for the writ of mandamus, seeking relief from the circuit court's order. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Sweeney demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief sought in his petition for the writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the Court granted the petition and issued the writ. View "Holland v. Sweeney" on Justia Law

Darren Woods and his half sister Joni Wood, appealed a judgment based on a jury verdict in favor of Karrie Hayes and against Joni in the amount of $437,761.52 and against Darren in the amount of $86,540.49 for violating the Alabama Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("AUFTA"). In 2004, Karrie Hayes, then age 14, was alone inside the house where she resided with her mother in Florence. Jason Earl Pruitt, at the request and under the direction of Stevie Woods, the father of Darren and Joni, released a large amount of propane gas into the residence and then ignited the gas, causing the residence to explode into flames. As a result of the explosion, Hayes sustained severe burns to over 70 percent of her body. Investigators quickly learned of Pruitt's involvement, and Pruitt thereafter implicated Stevie Woods. In 2006, Stevie Woods was arrested and charged with arson for the burning of the residence in which Hayes was living. Both Stevie Woods and Pruitt were convicted of arson in the first degree. Hayes, through her mother, filed a civil action against Stevie Woods and Pruitt seeking damages for the injuries she sustained as a result of the destruction of the residence. In amended complaints Hayes added claims alleging the fraudulent transfer of assets against Stevie Woods, Darren, Joni, and Flower Wood Development, LLC ("Flower Wood"), and conspiracy to engage in the fraudulent transfers and seeking injunctive relief to bar further transfers. With regard to these claims, Hayes specifically alleged that, with the knowledge of the existence of Hayes's claims against him, Stevie Woods fraudulently transferred real and personal property to various relatives, including Darren and Joni, as well as to Flower Wood. A jury awarded Hayes $5 million against Stevie Woods and Pruitt on her personal-injury claims. Stevie Woods did not appeal the verdict. The trial court determined that 11 deeds had been used to fraudulently transfer 9 parcels of real property from Stevie Woods to Darren, Joni, and Flower Wood, and the trial court set aside those deeds. The defendants did not challenge the order on appeal. Darren and Joni argued that the judgments based on the fraudulent transfers claims should be reversed on the ground that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence highly prejudicial photographs, medical records, and testimony concerning Hayes's injuries and photographs and testimony concerning the explosion. Upon review of this issue, the trial court's admission of evidence that was entirely irrelevant to Hayes's fraudulent-transfer claims and that was highly prejudicial to Darren and Joni. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that warranted reversal of the jury verdicts against Darren and Joni. Accordingly, the case was remanded for a new trial. View "Wood v. Hayes " on Justia Law