Alabama Insurance Guaranty Association v. Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board of the City of Montgomery

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/17/2011 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama 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 ((334) 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 . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2091028 Alabama Insurance Guaranty A s s o c i a t i o n v. Water Works and S a n i t a r y Sewer Board of the C i t y o f Montgomery Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-09-901277) PER Court CURIAM. The appeals Alabama from Insurance a summary Guaranty judgment Association entered ("AIGA") b y t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t i n w h i c h t h a t c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , t h e AIGA c o u l d n o t r e c o v e r s u b s t a n t i a l sums o f money 2091028 that i t h a d p a i d , on b e h a l f o f t h e W a t e r Works a n d S a n i t a r y Sewer B o a r d o f t h e C i t y o f Montgomery ("the B o a r d " ) , t o an i n j u r e d employee o f t h e B o a r d f o l l o w i n g t h e i n s o l v e n c y Board's workers' compensation Company ( " L e g i o n " ) . erred i n concluding insurer, Legion of the Insurance B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l court t h a t t h e AIGA's c l a i m was t i m e - b a r r e d , reverse that further proceedings. The legal r e v i e w began seeking court's judgment proceedings i n October leading remand t h e cause f o r t o t h e judgment under 2009 when t h e AIGA s u e d t h e B o a r d , a d e c l a r a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ' r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s u n d e r t h e AIGA's e n a b l i n g Guaranty A s s o c i a t i o n C h a p t e r 42 o f T i t l e general a n d we we l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e Alabama A c t ("the A c t " ) , w h i c h 27 o f t h e Code o f A l a b a m a Insurance i s codified i n (1975). As a r u l e , u n d e r t h e A c t , when an i n s u r e r o f r i s k s t h a t i s l i c e n s e d by t h i s s t a t e i s j u d i c i a l l y d e c l a r e d i n s o l v e n t and i s ordered t o be l i q u i d a t e d , any u n p a i d against t h a t i n s u r e r by r e s i d e n t s o f t h i s s t a t e and t h a t within are the coverages i n the p o l i c i e s "covered claims i s s u e d by t h a t c l a i m [ s ] " p a y a b l e b y t h e AIGA. 2 that a r e made fall insurer See A l a . Code 2091028 1 9 7 5 , §§ 27-42-5(6) and 2 7 - 4 2 - 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) . 1 The p a r t i e s ' d i s p u t e stems f r o m a c l a i m made by one o f t h e B o a r d ' s was injured c l a i m was i n a workplace accident employees, i n 2001; because t h e AIGA i n 2003 upon L e g i o n ' s In October B o a r d by l e t t e r 2 0 0 3 , an AIGA forwarded insolvency. claims examiner of Legion's insolvency. notified w i t h i n the d e f i n i t i o n of a "covered c l a i m " i n the A c t . 2000 amendment to the Act ( A c t No. before an insurer's fall Under 2000-743, A l a . A c t s 2 0 0 0 ) , c l a i m s by an i n s u r e d "whose n e t w o r t h e x c e e d s five million dollars the In t h a t l e t t e r , the AIGA i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e B o a r d ' s i n s u r a n c e c l a i m m i g h t n o t a that c o v e r e d by a w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i s s u e d t o t h e B o a r d by L e g i o n , t h e B o a r d ' s c l a i m was to who twenty- ($25,000,000) on December 31 o f t h e y e a r " insolvency were, f o r the first time, e x c l u d e d from the scope of " c o v e r e d c l a i m [ s ] " under the A c t , and the AIGA was extended a concomitant right to recover moneys i t h a d p a i d on b e h a l f o f s u c h a h i g h - n e t - w o r t h i n s u r e d . The O c t o b e r 2003 l e t t e r d i r e c t e d t h e B o a r d t o p r o v i d e t h e AIGA A l t h o u g h t h e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e AIGA g e n e r a l l y does n o t e x t e n d t o t h e f i r s t $100 o f c o v e r e d c l a i m s o r e x c e e d $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 , w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n i n s u r a n c e c l a i m s a r e exempt f r o m t h o s e limitations. See A l a . Code 1975, § 2 7 - 4 2 - 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) . 1 3 2091028 w i t h documentation of the Board's net worth. The B o a r d failed t o p r o v i d e s u c h d o c u m e n t a t i o n t o t h e AIGA, p r o m p t i n g t h e AIGA c l a i m s e x a m i n e r t o s e n d a s e c o n d l e t t e r on November 10, 2003, t o a g a i n s e e k t h a t d o c u m e n t a t i o n and t o warn t h a t a f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e t h a t d o c u m e n t a t i o n w i t h i n 15 d a y s m i g h t r e s u l t i n t h e B o a r d ' s l o s s o f r i g h t s and c o v e r a g e s u n d e r t h e A c t . However, e x a c t l y 15 days l a t e r , t h e B o a r d and i t s e m p l o y e e s e t t l e d a l l aspects of the employee's w o r k e r s ' compensation claim; the AIGA f u n d e d t h e $40,000 c o m p e n s a t i o n s e t t l e m e n t amount and has s i n c e p a i d f o r the employee's medical benefits. I n J a n u a r y 2004, t h e AIGA c l a i m s e x a m i n e r a g a i n c o n t a c t e d the Board, this time by sending a facsimile transmission i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e AIGA w o u l d n e e d a r e s p o n s e t o " o u r (presumably, letter). a reference to The transmission. Board There did the not AIGA's November respond i s no i n d i c a t i o n to the letter" 10, facsimile i n the r e c o r d t h a t f u r t h e r a c t i o n was t a k e n by t h e AIGA f o r a p e r i o d o f o v e r y e a r s a f t e r t h a t f a c s i m i l e message was of the Board's Pursuant 2003, any five s e n t as t o t h e payment insurance claim. to became l a w i n May Act No. 2009, 2009-716, certain 4 Ala. Acts 2009, which amendments t o t h e A c t went 2091028 i n t o e f f e c t on A u g u s t 1, 2009. l e g i s l a t u r e was which (1) the the was expressly claimants that expressly from i n s u r e d s authorized, to provide insured refusal a d d i t i o n of p r o v i s i o n s to the Act AIGA was worth information or claimant insured information to presumption in judicial worth greater was determining the that upon requested an by Among t h e c h a n g e s made by a an AIGA. authorized Ala. apparently to the Code any refusal insureds net of worth the rise that $25,000,000; that insured"; requested give proceedings had or to the a (3) financial rebuttable insured's and (4) refused a a net court to provide a high-net-worth insured t o award a t t o r n e y § AIGA (2) provide insured 1975, net- claimants; f i n a n c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e AIGA was w o u l d be request and "high would than under f i n a n c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n , t o deem to AIGA empowered t o the 27-42-11(g) fees and and (h). costs to The the AIGA, a n t i c i p a t i n g t h e i m p e n d i n g e f f e c t o f t h e amendments Act, notified the B o a r d by 2009, t h a t t h e B o a r d a p p e a r e d t o be t h e AIGA r e q u e s t e d a letter dated June a high-net-worth r e i m b u r s e m e n t o f a l l moneys p a i d t o 18, insured; satisfy the employee's w o r k e r s ' compensation c l a i m a g a i n s t the Board. The Board apparently d i d not receive that l e t t e r u n t i l 5 early 2091028 September Board, 2009, a f t e r the in a letter r e p l y i n g to contending t h a t the any reimbursement On amendments had the taken effect; AIGA, d e n i e d liability, a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s b a r r e d claim. O c t o b e r 30, 2009, s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e B o a r d had t h e AIGA's r e i m b u r s e m e n t r e q u e s t , denied t h e AIGA b r o u g h t i t s a c t i o n ; t h e AIGA s o u g h t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , a judgment i n the o f $49,135.61 p l u s fees attorney and costs. The a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s b a r r e d reimbursement claim and amendments t o t h e A c t u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l as a that apply the Board a two-year judgment against in [the i t that a p p l i e d to the [sums] paid by in statute of to 2 [the collect to money The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l f i l e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the a c t i o n . 6 an 2009 fees from answer and 20, filed its court] ... render the was of a l l claims [ t h e ] AIGA p r i o r t o O c t o b e r 2 the support trial l i m i t a t i o n s and as AIGA's Each p a r t y i t s brief in Board's] favor of filed things, the of a t t o r n e y Board. "request[ed] that seek portion allowing recovery summary-judgment m o t i o n ; motion, the amount Board an answer d e n y i n g l i a b i l i t y and a s s e r t i n g , among o t h e r t h a t the the summary pending Board 2007." waived for The further 2091028 parties jointly submitted Board's on requested the t h a t the cross-motions. summary-judgment trial The motion c o u r t deem t h e trial and court granted awarded j u d g m e n t o f o n l y $1,092.03 p l u s c o u r t c o s t s of medical injured institution of during the AIGA's the two c o u r t , w h i c h has based upon the j u d g m e n t , we So. 1060 2d 1056, then p a i d 1058 the The AIGA a p p e a l e d t o t h i s evidence court's amount judgment submitted by the c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t no C o n t i n e n t a l E l e c . Co. ( A l a . C i v . App. presumption v. C i t y o f 1 9 8 4 ) , a f f ' d , 473 Leeds, So. 2d p r i m a r y d i s p u t e b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s , as e v i d e n c e d by ( A l a . 1985). The their See the w i t h t h e i r c r o s s - m o t i o n s f o r a summary a f f o r d the t r i a l of c o r r e c t n e s s . a Board's preceding Board Because the t r i a l documentary p a r t i e s i n connection 473 AIGA a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n b a s e d upon t h e of the judgment i n v o l v e d . the ( i . e . , t h e amount years a c t i o n ) ; the amount o f t h a t j u d g m e n t i n t o c o u r t . was the b e n e f i t s p a i d by t h e AIGA on b e h a l f o f t h e employee case appellate limitations. applied briefs, concerns the applicable statute The B o a r d c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a two-year statute of limitations to bar properly the large m a j o r i t y o f t h e AIGA's r e i m b u r s e m e n t c l a i m , a v e r r i n g t h a t 7 of the 2091028 r e i m b u r s e m e n t c l a i m a c c r u e d upon t h e AIGA's i n i t i a l payment o f moneys on t h e B o a r d ' s b e h a l f AIGA's claim statutory i s i n the "penalty" or i n November nature a of tort a 2003 and t h a t claim claim not for either its accrual. a specifically e n u m e r a t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n C h a p t e r 2 o f T i t l e Code, so as t o be b a r r e d the 6 of the a f t e r two y e a r s h a v e e l a p s e d See A l a . Code 1975, § 6 - 2 - 3 8 ( j ) and (l). after 3 The AIGA c o n t e n d s t h a t i t s c l a i m i s i n s t e a d one g o v e r n e d b y a s i x y e a r s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s (see A l a . Code 1975, § 6 - 2 - 3 4 ( 5 ) ) 4 " ( j ) A l l a c t i o n s q u i tam o r f o r a penalty given by s t a t u t e t o t h e p a r t y aggrieved, unless the s t a t u t e imposing i t p r e s c r i b e s a d i f f e r e n t l i m i t a t i o n , must be b r o u g h t w i t h i n two y e a r s . " " ( l ) A l l a c t i o n s f o r any i n j u r y t o t h e person or r i g h t s of another not a r i s i n g from contract and not specifically e n u m e r a t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n must be b r o u g h t w i t h i n two y e a r s . " "The following within s i x years: must be commenced II "(5) A c t i o n s f o r t h e r e c o v e r y o f money upon a l o a n , upon a s t a t e d o r l i q u i d a t e d a c c o u n t o r f o r a r r e a r s o f r e n t due upon a p a r o l demise." 8 2091028 and t h a t , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h i c h l i m i t a t i o n s s t a t u t e a p p l i e s , t h e AIGA's claim d i d not accrue until t h e AIGA's receipt of information p e r m i t t i n g "discovery" of the f a c t that the Board was a h i g h - n e t - w o r t h i n s u r e d o c c u r r e d i n 2009). (a " d i s c o v e r y " B e c a u s e t h e AIGA f i l e d that purportedly i t s c i v i l action i n O c t o b e r 2009, l e s s t h a n s i x y e a r s a f t e r i n d e m n i f y i n g the Board as t o i t s e m p l o y e e ' s w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n c l a i m i n November 2003, the threshold material question i s which o f t h e two l i m i t a t i o n s s t a t u t e s , § 6-2-34 o r § 6-2-38, g o v e r n s t h e AIGA's reimbursement To nature claim. properly answer t h a t question, we o f t h e AIGA's r e i m b u r s e m e n t r i g h t . must claims a s s e r t e d by i n s u r e d s $25,000,000 from responsibilities. (provision the See f o r m e r in effect c l a i m " under the A c t ) . so having scope from Likewise, of i n s u r e d whose n e t w o r t h dollars ... and whose AIGA's t o 2009 indemnity A l a . Code defining 1975 "covered to recover from ... e x c e e d s t w e n t y - f i v e liability 9 first t h e A c t was amended i n 2000 as t o e x t e n d t o t h e AIGA " t h e r i g h t [a]n f o r the a net worth of over § 27-42-5(4), 2000 the As we have n o t e d , t h e A c t was amended i n 2000 so as t o e x c l u d e , time, assess obligations, ... million including 2091028 o b l i g a t i o n s under w o r k e r s ' to other persons compensation insurance are s a t i s f i e d i n whole coverages, o r i n p a r t by t h e p a y m e n t s " made b y t h e AIGA on t h a t i n s u r e d ' s b e h a l f . A l a . Code 1975, former § 27-42-11(d) ( i n e f f e c t f r o m 2000 t o 2 0 0 9 ) . Thus, u n d e r t h e A c t as i t was i n e f f e c t i n November 2003, once a payment was made b y t h e AIGA on b e h a l f o f a high-net-worth i n s u r e d , t h e AIGA's r i g h t t o r e c o v e r t h a t payment vested; there AIGA's i s no i n d i c a t i o n recovery right immediately i n the Act i t s e l f that the was i n any way c o n d i t i o n e d upon t h e s t a t u s o f t h e AIGA's k n o w l e d g e c o n c e r n i n g w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r i n s u r e d had a h i g h n e t worth. The r i g h t t o r e c o v e r b e s t o w e d b y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e upon t h e AIGA u n d e r t h e A c t as i t r e a d i n 2003 i s n o t i d e n t i f i e d b y t h e A c t as a c a u s e o f a c t i o n s o u n d i n g is i n t o r t or i n contract, nor i t l a b e l e d as a p e n a l t y t o be i m p o s e d b y a c o u r t upon an i n s u r e d f o r having a r e l a t i v e l y high net worth. Rather, i t is a s t a t u t o r y r i g h t p e r m i t t i n g t h e r e c o v e r y o f a l i q u i d a t e d sum: an amount e q u a l t o what t h e AIGA h a s p a i d on b e h a l f o f a h i g h net-worth us insured. t o agree with Our r e v i e w o f a p p l i c a b l e A l a b a m a l a w l e a d s t h e AIGA that the six-year statute of l i m i t a t i o n s p r o v i d e d i n A l a . Code 1975, § 6-2-34, upon w h i c h 10 2091028 the AIGA r e l i e s , does i n d e e d AIGA's r e i m b u r s e m e n t c l a i m action of debt (as implied contract) See apply i s i n the opposed t o f o r the in this 471 money (1948) and r e c o v e r y , an no (1950) when t h e creates particular a c t i o n of debt i s the C i t y o f A n n i s t o n v. Dempsey, 253 776 A l a . 367, ("a cause of a c t i o n liability is fixed 2-34)); 846, t i t . 7, see 848 also § 21 by State ( A l a . C i v . App. (now of A l a . 597, ... 371, ... 34 601, law. So. pay for i t s 45 So. and 2d 773, nothing else i s i n debt and the Ala. c o d i f i e d as A l a . Code 1975, 1988) 2d to c i t i n g D o u g l a s and Highway Dep't v. or remedy"), f o r money and law by action appropriate s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s i s s i x y e a r s " ; Code 1940, express a liability form The a common-law r e c o v e r y o f money p r o v i d e d ("when a s t a t u t e prescribes n a t u r e of a s s u m p s i t upon an C i t y o f A n n i s t o n v. D o u g l a s , 250 467, situation. Oglesby, 530 § So. 2d ( r e t i r e d s t a t e employee's c l a i m f o r r e c o v e r y of u n p a i d s t a t u t o r y per diem a l l o w a n c e h e l d t o in d e b t and in § 6-2-34). case there evidences AIGA, subject i s no the "[a]n to six-year A l t h o u g h we document, existence action of 6¬ limitations period agree w i t h such of debt a as the may 11 Board that a promissory contractual or may set debt not forth in this note, owed t o be be based that the on 2091028 contract" ( D o u g l a s , 250 Ala. t h e AIGA's r i g h t o f r e c o v e r y at 370, 34 So. 2d at 470), u n d e r t h e A c t as i t was and in effect i n 2003 i s no l e s s s u b j e c t t o § 6-2-34 f o r t h e l a c k o f s u c h express agreement. Based upon an 5 the foregoing facts and authorities, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e AIGA's r e i m b u r s e m e n t c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e B o a r d was t i m e l y b r o u g h t i n O c t o b e r 2009, l e s s t h a n s i x y e a r s a f t e r the AIGA made i t s f i r s t payment on r e s u l t of Legion's i n s o l v e n c y . determining, against as i t did, that t h e B o a r d was barred behalf of the B o a r d as a Thus, the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n the AIGA's r e i m b u r s e m e n t as a m a t t e r o f law t h a t i t s o u g h t moneys p a i d more t h a n two to the years before claim extent t h e AIGA We n o t e h e r e t h e B o a r d ' s c i t a t i o n o f a n o t e d t r e a t i s e on t h e law o f damages f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a t w o - y e a r s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s a p p l i e s t o "an a c t i o n b a s e d upon a l i a b i l i t y c r e a t e d by s t a t u t e ... unless some o t h e r time l i m i t i s m e n t i o n e d i n t h e s t a t u t e c r e a t i n g i t . " J e n e l l e M. M a r s h and C h a r l e s W. Gamble, A l a b a m a Law o f Damages § 11:25 ( 5 t h ed. 2004). T h i s s t a t e m e n t a p p e a r s t o be an o v e r b r o a d t e x t u a l g l o s s upon t h e h o l d i n g i n U n i v e r s a l C r e d i t Co. v. C l a y C o u n t y T r a d i n g Co., 235 A l a . 577, 180 So. 259 ( 1 9 3 8 ) , w h i c h c o n c e r n e d a claim f o r a true s t a t u t o r y penalty for f a i l i n g to record a s a t i s f a c t i o n o f a c h a t t e l l i e n ( i . e . , a c l a i m as t o w h i c h t h e p r e d e c e s s o r o f A l a . Code 1975, § 6 - 2 - 3 8 ( j ) , w o u l d have a p p l i e d by i t s t e r m s ) . I n c o n t r a s t , D o u g l a s , Dempsey, and O g l e s b y c l e a r l y hold that a s i x - y e a r l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d applies to c l a i m s b a s e d upon s t a t u t o r y l i a b i l i t i e s t h a t do n o t i n v o l v e penalties. 5 12 2091028 b r o u g h t i t s a c t i o n i n O c t o b e r 2009. t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , we the t r i a l opinion. The failing r e v e r s e , and we court f o r f u r t h e r proceedings of the remand t h e c a u s e t o consistent with this 6 AIGA f u r t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t o award i t a t t o r n e y o f A l a . Code 1975, trial court erred i n fees pursuant to subsection § 2 7 - 4 2 - 1 1 , as amended i n 2009. the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n to As t o t h a t a s p e c t t h a t t h e AIGA was (h) B a s e d upon not entitled r e c o v e r t h e l a r g e m a j o r i t y o f i t s payments on b e h a l f o f Board to the employee, the trial court could properly d e n i e d a f e e a w a r d on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e AIGA had n o t prevailed in the action without reaching the the have actually preliminary c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n r a i s e d by t h e B o a r d c o n c e r n i n g whether t h e 2009 amendment c o u l d p r o p e r l y be a p p l i e d r e t r o a c t i v e l y the parties' judgment as necessarily dispute. to the Our r e v e r s a l of AIGA's i m p l i c a t e s the the reimbursement correctness trial claim, of the trial to court's however, court's We d e c l i n e t h e AIGA's r e q u e s t t o s i m p l y r e n d e r a j u d g m e n t i n i t s favor because, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h i s c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n as t o t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , t h e AIGA d i d n o t d e m o n s t r a t e a t t h e summary-judgment s t a g e t h a t none o f t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s a s s e r t e d by t h e B o a r d has any f a c t u a l o r legal basis. 6 13 2091028 denial o f a f e e a w a r d ; we thus reverse the t r i a l court's j u d g m e n t as t o t h a t i s s u e as w e l l , a n d we remand t h e c a u s e f o r that court, 2009 amendment parties' i n the f i r s t instance, t o § 27-42-11 dispute and, to consider applies i f the whether the r e t r o a c t i v e l y to the amendment i s held to be a p p l i c a b l e , t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e AIGA i s e n t i t l e d t o a f e e a w a r d as a component o f any new j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s on remand f r o m t h i s entered court. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Thomas, concur. Bryan, J . , d i s s e n t s , with w r i t i n g . 14 a n d Moore, J J . , 2091028 BRYAN, J u d g e , dissenting. In J e f f e r s o n County v. R e a c h , 368 1 9 7 8 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t So. 2d 250, 252 ( A l a . stated: "The d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n a c l a i m ex c o n t r a c t u and one ex d e l i c t o i s f o u n d i n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e g r i e v a n c e . Where t h e wrong r e s u l t s f r o m a b r e a c h o f a p r o m i s e , t h e c l a i m i s ex c o n t r a c t u . However, i f t h e wrong s p r i n g s f r o m a b r e a c h o f a d u t y e i t h e r growing out of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the p a r t i e s , or i m p o s e d by l a w , t h e c l a i m i s ex d e l i c t o . " In Alabama the case now before Insurance Guaranty us, the claim Association asserted the AIGA") i s not b a s e d on a p r o m i s e ; c o n s e q u e n t l y , i t i s n o t a c o n t r a c t claim. See J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y v. R e a c h . B e c a u s e in contract, statute 1975. of i t i s , i n my opinion, l i m i t a t i o n s contained Section 6-2-38(l) ("the by t h e AIGA's c l a i m i s n o t governed in § by t h e 6-2-38(l), two-year A l a . Code provides: " ( l ) A l l a c t i o n s f o r any i n j u r y t o t h e p e r s o n o r r i g h t s o f a n o t h e r n o t a r i s i n g f r o m c o n t r a c t and n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y e n u m e r a t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n must be b r o u g h t w i t h i n two y e a r s . " (Emphasis For added.) its limitations 7 Section conclusion that contained in § 6-2-34(5) provides: the six-year 6-2-34(5), 15 Ala. statute Code of 1975, 7 2091028 a p p l i e s , t h e m a i n o p i n i o n r e l i e s on a l i n e o f c a s e s addressing c l a i m s by g o v e r n m e n t e m p l o y e e s s e e k i n g t o r e c o v e r u n p a i d money their government employers owed them by A n n i s t o n v. D o u g l a s , 250 A l a . 367, of Anniston v. Dempsey, 253 34 So. A l a . 597, and S t a t e Highway Dep't v. O g l e s b y , 530 App. 1 9 8 8 ) . Those c a s e s case now b e f o r e us -- law, i.e., City 2d 467 45 So. So. (1948), 2d 773 2d 846 City (1950), (Ala. Civ. are p l a i n l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e AIGA i s n o t of the a government employee s e e k i n g t o r e c o v e r u n p a i d money i t s g o v e r n m e n t e m p l o y e r owes i t by l a w . A c c o r d i n g l y , I w o u l d h o l d t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e AIGA's c l a i m i s n o t b a s e d on year a promise, s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s I denying 11(h), award also conclude that i t i s g o v e r n e d by the two- contained i n § 6-2-38(l). the trial court did not err in an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e AIGA. S e c t i o n 27-42A l a . Code to the "The years: 1975, [AIGA] provides attorney's following must be that fees the and trial court costs." commenced within (Emphasis six " "(5) A c t i o n s f o r t h e r e c o v e r y o f money upon a l o a n , upon a s t a t e d o r l i q u i d a t e d a c c o u n t o f f o r a r r e a r s o f r e n t due upon a p a r o l d e m i s e . " 16 "may 2091028 added.) "'An award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s , where p e r m i s s i b l e , i s a matter w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l Sys., 315 2000) (quoting Motor Express, 1996)). ISS I n c . , 686 I see no Int'l So. 1189 ( A l a . C i v . App. indication trial c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n by n o t a w a r d i n g 2d not court F e i l v. W i t t e r n Group, I n c . , 784 ( A l a . C i v . App. I n c . v. A l a b a m a c o u r t and w i l l absent a showing t h a t the t r i a l abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . ' " 2d 302, of the t r i a l So. Serv. 1184, that the attorney f e e s t o t h e AIGA. Accordingly, I would court i n i t s e n t i r e t y . affirm Therefore, 17 the judgment of the trial I respectfully dissent.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.