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.