SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

REL:08/21/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e...
Author: Leslie Ward
2 downloads 1 Views 337KB Size
REL:08/21/2009

Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2009

1080366

Ex

parte

Progressive

Specialty

Insurance

Company

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In

r e : Marvin

Leatherwood

v. B l a k e n e y Company, L L C , e t a l . ) (Hale C i r c u i t

Court,

CV-06-154)

1080393

Ex

parte

Pritchett-Moore,

I n c . , a n d Andrew Hudson

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In

r e : Marvin

Leatherwood

v. Blakeney

Company, LLC, e t a l . )

(Hale C i r c u i t SHAW,

C o u r t , CV-06-154)

Justice.

Progressive (case

no.

Hudson

1080366)

(case

directing against

and P r i t c h e t t - M o o r e ,

no. 1080393)

the t r i a l

court

Progressive

Pritchett-Moore

and

petition to

I n c . ,and

third-party

a

claims

and i s s u e

December

truck

filed against

Company, L L C ; We g r a n t t h e

the writs.

1, 2 0 0 6 , w h i l e

owned

o f mandamus

filed

Blakeney

Andrew

"Pritchett-

cross-claim

driving

i n Northport,

L e a t h e r w o o d was i n v o l v e d i n a m o t o r - v e h i c l e dump

as

f o rwrits

strike

by t h e respondents,

("Progressive")

L i v i n g s t o n , J r . ; and W i l l i a m Blakeney.

petitions On

Company

(hereinafter referred to collectively

Moore")

William

S p e c i a l t y Insurance

by Blakeney

Company,

collision

Marvin with a

LLC, and d r i v e n

by

L i v i n g s t o n . B l a k e n e y C o m p a n y , L L C , was i n s u r e d b y a c o m m e r c i a l insurance

policy

principal

o f Blakeney

from

Hudson,

issued by Progressive.

whom

William Blakeney-- a

Company, L L C - - h a d p u r c h a s e d

the complaint

Pritchett-Moore, Inc.

2

alleges

was

an

the policy agent

of

1080366, On Hale in

1080393

D e c e m b e r 18,

Circuit

the

sought

Court

collision. damages

2006, L e a t h e r w o o d

filed

an

action

s e e k i n g damages f o r i n j u r i e s The

1

from

c o m p l a i n t was

Blakeney

amended and

Company,

LLC,

sought

Livingston

and

"Blakeney

and

the

alleged

negligent

Livingston

are

hiring,

truck

training,

(hereinafter

referred

for

Blakeney

to c o l l e c t i v e l y

as

LLC").

Progressive pursuant

to

Blakeney

LLC

the

provided commercial

separately

2 0 0 8 , P r o g r e s s i v e was limited

Additionally,

o r w a n t o n e n t r u s t m e n t o f t h e dump

s u p e r v i s i o n , and r e t e n t i o n o f L i v i n g s t o n Company, L L C ,

Livingston

damages a g a i n s t B l a k e n e y Company, L L C ,

the a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n t to

sustained ultimately

and

b a s e d on t h e o r i e s o f n e g l i g e n c e a n d w a n t o n n e s s . Leatherwood

he

i n the

purpose

separately Progressive

listed

of

defense

counsel

for

insurance policy.

retained

private

Blakeney

LLC

Additionally,

counsel.

In

March

a l l o w e d to i n t e r v e n e i n the case f o r the requesting a

compensatory

requested

this

special

damages and

special

verdict

verdict

form

punitive form

that

damages.

because,

i t

A l t h o u g h L e a t h e r w o o d was a r e s i d e n t o f T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , w h e r e t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d , L i v i n g s t o n was a r e s i d e n t o f H a l e County and Blakeney Company, LLC, p u r p o r t e d l y conducted business there. 1

3

1080366,

1080393

argued, the excluded

coverage f o r p u n i t i v e

The found

commercial insurance

c a s e was

in

favor

compensatory trial

tried of

before

and

entered

Progressive

tendered

payment portion

postjudgment

counsel

A

motion,

LLC

challenged

hearing

S e p t e m b e r 16, the

B l a k e n e y LLC "amend

the

the

2008.

materials

a t t o r n e y s who

on

the

On

to

and

Blakeney

Pritchett-Moore.

of

the

the

jury

by

motion

the

for

and

Blakeney

a

Progressive

to

award.

was

scheduled

that

LLC

the

summary

at

to

for

9:20

a.m.,

on b e h a l f

add

leave a

third-party

claims

of to

cross-

t o a l l o w B l a k e n e y Company,

file

and

LLC,

against

A d d i t i o n a l l y , B l a k e n e y LLC's p r i v a t e l y h i r e d

a motion

this

to

allow

the

In

case-action

reveal

in

verdict.

judgment.

provided

jury

damages;

Leatherwood

of

Court

The

W i l l i a m Blakeney a motion requesting

Progressive

filing

on

punitive-damages

this

LLC

$200,000

punitive

to

t h a t day,

claim against

filed

him

were r e p r e s e n t i n g L e a t h e r w o o d f i l e d

pleadings"

counsel

awarded in

postjudgment

before

and

William

and

judgment

compensatory-damages

Blakeney

a j u r y i n June 2008.

$225,000

a

covering Blakeney

damages.

Leatherwood

damages

court

policy

motion

to

dismiss and

an

4

" a l lpending motions"; order

granting

i t ,

the

which

1080366,

1080393

effectively

withdrew

Blakeney

challenging

the

case-action

summary a t

At

9:47

contract that

and

bad

the

third-party

claims

for

Additionally,

the

against

in

the

alleged

Blakeney

commercial

against

breach LLC

alleged

insurance

policy

Progressive f a i l e d to LLC

Pritchett-Moore,

failure

settle

exposed

Blakeney, as

who

which

to

procure

had

not

a plaintiff

been

of

to

a

filed sought

insurance. a party

in

i n the t h i r d - p a r t y

Pritchett-Moore. and

cross-claim

and

Pritchett-Moore the

Moore have f i l e d p e t i t i o n s jurisdiction

and

filed

motions

third-party claims,

denied these motions.

court's

noted

F u r t h e r , B l a k e n e y Company, LLC,

to j o i n

Progressive

court

for

leaving Blakeney

against

William

were

motion

the c r o s s - c l a i m

Specifically,

negligent

a c t i o n , sought

claims

filed

Progressive

award.

award,

damages

a c t i o n , thus

punitive-damages

the

LLC

sought

faith.

postjudgment

a.m.

$1,000,000 i n c o v e r a g e ,

Leatherwood's

damages

9:37

Blakeney

which

although

provided

punitive-damages

a.m.,

Progressive,

LLC's

Both

in this

Progressive

dismiss

and

the

and

Pritchett-

Court c h a l l e n g i n g the

seeking

5

to

mandamus

relief;

trial

trial those

1080366, petitions one

1080393 have

been

c o n s o l i d a t e d f o r the purpose

of

issuing

opinion. Standard

of Review

"'Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y where t h e r e i s ( 1 ) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; ( 2 ) an imperative duty upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t to perform, a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; ( 3 ) t h e l a c k o f another adequate remedy; and ( 4 ) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . ' Ex p a r t e I n t e g o n C o r p . , 672 S o . 2 d 4 9 7 , 4 99 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . The q u e s t i o n o f subject-matter jurisdiction i s reviewable by a petition f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. E x p a r t e Flint C o n s t r . C o . , 775 S o . 2 d 805 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . " Ex

parte

(Ala.

Liberty Nat'l

Life

I n s . Co.,

8 88

So. 2d

478 , 480

2003). Discussion Progressive

and P r i t c h e t t - M o o r e

final

judgment had been e n t e r e d

trial

court

pleadings

lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n

adding

new c l a i m s

contend

t h a t , because

on L e a t h e r w o o d ' s to accept

a

claims, the

an amendment t o t h e

a n d a new p a r t y .

We

agree.

2

A l t h o u g h P r o g r e s s i v e does n o t r a i s e i n i t s p e t i t i o n t h e precise jurisdictional i s s u e we a d d r e s s , the "'[l]ack of s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n may n o t b e w a i v e d b y t h e p a r t i e s and i t i s t h e d u t y o f an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r l a c k o f s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n ex mero motu .'" Ex p a r t e B e r r y , 999 S o . 2 d 8 8 3 , 888 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e S m i t h , 438 So. 2 d 7 6 6 , 768 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . 2

6

1080366,

1080393

Generally,

this

C o u r t has r e f u s e d

to allow

pleadings

t o add a d d i t i o n a l p a r t i e s and c l a i m s

has

finally

been

adjudicated.

Richardson,

I n c . , 845

trial

court

could

allow

a party

Harper

S o . 2 d 777

not, after

t o a d d a new

party

Brown,

( A l a . 2002)

Stagner,

(holding that

of a f i n a l

a n d a new

to

a f t e r the cause

v.

the entry

amendments

a

judgment,

c l a i m b y means o f

a m o t i o n u n d e r R u l e 6 0 , A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h s o u g h t t o amend the complaint Capital, trial

without

seeking

I n c . v. B o y e t t ,

court

original

erred

had

been

Insurance

Co.

of North

(holding

that

Rule

amended

remand

permit

on

( A l a . 2002)

the p l a i n t i f f s

entered

in

America, 15,

pleadings, when

Ala.

the

case");

523

So.

R.

Civ.

d i d not

allow

the a p p e l l a t e

2d

and

1064

P., a

the

case).

I n F a i t h P r o p e r t i e s , LLC v. F i r s t

988

S o . 2 d 4 8 5 , 490 filed

Vakili

had

an

( A l a . 2008),

action

breached

an

against

Ex

the final

parte

( A l a . 1988) allows

which

to

be

d i d not

a d j u d i c a t i o n of Commercial

Bank,

First

C o m m e r c i a l Bank

("the

Kevin

Vakili

agreement

7

a

which

mandate,

("the

amend

complaint

s u c h an amendment, a m o u n t e d t o a f i n a l

Bank")

to

t o add a d d i t i o n a l d e f e n d a n t s a f t e r

judgment

to

from the judgment); P r a t t

840 S o . 2 d 1 3 8 , 145

i n allowing

complaint

amendments

relief

to

alleging

guarantee

payments

that of

1080366, loans

1080393

the Bank had

made t o

d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t was a

postjudgment

judgment, at

but

corporations

entered

motion

court

relief

denied

requesting

the

the motion.

the

Bank

leave

filed

a

motion

t o amend i t s c o m p l a i n t

p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s F a i t h P r o p e r t i e s , LLC wife,

Marjan

under

the Alabama Fraudulent

8-9A-4 a n d --two

Vakili.

-5, and

of which

Faith

had

owned

by

f o r no

Specifically,

filed

default

988

So.

been

judgment

setting

aside

as

and

default Bank

was

judgment

a

was

later

to

trial

t o add

2d

Bank

as

amend

entered

a

that

son.

The

Vakili

lien

and

one

claims

on

§§

estate

of which

had

been t r a n s f e r r e d

Bank

was

actually

thus

sought to

declaring

and

that

a 988

a

Faith

the p r o p e r t i e s .

on i t s a m e n d e d c l a i m s .

8

Vakili's

of r e a l

Faith

i t s pleadings,

489.

third-

alleged

parcels

and

against

court

as

the t r a n s f e r s of the p a r c e l s

attached

allowed

and

and M a r j a n - - h a d

Vakili's

judgment

judgment

the

A c t , A l a . Code 1975,

three

consideration and

the

owned by V a k i l i

by V a k i l i

Marjan

void

that

in

( " F a i t h " ) , and

Transfer

asserted

b e e n owned j o i n t l y

at

from

A

487-89. Later,

to

Vakili.

i n the Bank's f a v o r ; V a k i l i

seeking

the t r i a l

owned by

the The

summary So.

2d

1080366, On

1080393

appeal,

favor

of

this

the

requested

Bank

and

was

Court

noted that

granted

thus

a l l

a final

the

the

d e f a u l t judgment

relief

judgment,

the

Bank

in had

stating:

"'"A judgment t h a t c o n c l u s i v e l y determines a l l o f t h e i s s u e s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t and a s c e r t a i n s and d e c l a r e s the r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i s a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . " ' [ P r a t t C a p i t a l , I n c . v.] Boyett, 840 So. 2 d [ 1 3 8 , ] 144 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ] ( q u o t i n g N i c h o l s v . I n g r a m P l u m b i n g , 710 So. 2 d 4 5 4 , 455 (Ala. Civ. A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) ) . 'A j u d g m e n t t h a t d e c l a r e s t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s and s e t t l e s t h e e q u i t i e s i s f i n a l e v e n though the t r i a l court e n v i s i o n s f u r t h e r proceedings to e f f e c t u a t e t h e j u d g m e n t . ' Wyers v. Keenon, 762 So. 2d 353, 355 (Ala. 1999). Otherwise s t a t e d , a judgment t h a t i s ' d e f i n i t i v e of the cause i n the court below, l e a v i n g nothing f u r t h e r t o be done, save [ i t s enforcement],' i s a f i n a l judgment. Ex p a r t e G i l m e r , 64 A l a . 2 3 4 , 235 (1879)." 988 is

So. not

2d a t 4 9 0 - 9 1 . subject

motion:

"In

judgment all

filed So.

2d

a b s e n t an

connection,

subject

have

490

omitted)). court

that

pursuant at

Court f u r t h e r noted t h a t a judgment

to r e v i s i o n

i s not

parties

The

been

to

i t

(quoting

Boyett,

59,

or

concluded:

has

no

jurisdiction

complaint

to

add

new

well

to

claims

84 0

So.

9

2d

at

"Otherwise

new

a

A l a . R.

entertain or

a l l the

absent

60,

a

postjudgment

settled

after

adjudicated, 55,

thus

is

revision

to Rules

We

appropriate

that

'a

claims

of

timely Civ. 143

parties

P.'"

988

(emphasis

stated,

motion

motion

to

after

a

trial

amend a

a

final

1080366,

1080393

judgment has been e n t e r e d , aside

or

vacated'

procedure."

unless

pursuant

to

the default

(emphasis

judgment

court

postjudgment motion,

lacked

complaint court

denied

between trial

or vacated Court

held

to entertain

postjudgment

civil

a

final

an

was

i n response to that

the

amendment

trial

to the

"[W]hen t h e t r i a l lost

t o e n t e r t a i n an amendment t o t h e c o m p l a i n t . "

988

See a l s o

completely

Nichols

(holding that

a n d was

c o u r t h a d no j u r i s d i c t i o n certify

motion

v. Ingram,

adjudicated

the l i t i g a n t s

dismiss,

of

i t

( A l a . C i v . App. 1998)

judgment

to

Vakili's

2d a t 491.

455-56

Vakili

a d d i n g f u r t h e r c l a i m s and p a r t i e s :

jurisdiction So.

jurisdiction

this

rules

added).

against

judgment t h a t had not been s e t a s i d e Vakili's

'judgment i s f i r s t s e t

the state's

988 S o . 2 d a t 490

Because

that

final

710 S o . 2 d 4 5 4 ,

the t r i a l

a l l matters a

...

in

a judgment

controversy

judgment;

to subsequently as f i n a l ,

court's

thus,

grant

or enter

the

a motion a summary

judgment). In

the

judgment

on

completely Leatherwood.

instant the

case,

jury

adjudicated Although

the

verdict the the

trial was

final

claims

trial

10

a

court's

court

of may

entry judgment

the have

of

a

that

plaintiff, retained

1080366,

1080393

jurisdiction

to

alter

postjudgment motion, court to

i n this

accept

claims

case.

i t s

no

judgment

s u c h m o t i o n was

Thus, t h e t r i a l

Blakeney

LLC's

a n d a new p a r t y .

by

granted

court

amendment

an

appropriate by t h e

lacked

trial

jurisdiction

purporting

to

F a i t h P r o p e r t i e s , supra,

add

new

and N i c h o l s ,

supra. Conclusion The

trial

Blakeney

LLC's

third-party are

due

court

amended

claim,

t o be

did

and

stricken

not

have

pleadings a party.

jurisdiction adding

a

Therefore,

and t h e c l a i m s GRANTED; WRIT

ISSUED.

1080393--PETITION

GRANTED; WRIT

ISSUED.

C . J . , and W o o d a l l ,

Smith,

11

accept

cross-claim, those

a

pleadings

dismissed.

1080366--PETITION

Cobb,

to

and P a r k e r ,

J J . , concur.