Tracy Mitchell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/07/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 ( ( 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 . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100184 Tracy M i t c h e l l v. S t a t e Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Appeal from Lauderdale C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-900191) PITTMAN, This Judge. appeal application presents a question regarding o f t h e "common-fund" e x c e p t i o n the proper to the so-called "American r u l e , " w h i c h g e n e r a l l y b a r s awards o f a t t o r n e y f e e s to p r e v a i l i n g p a r t i e s , i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a d i s p u t e b e t w e e n an 2100184 i n j u r e d i n s u r e d p a r t y and a s u b r o g a t e d insurance c a r r i e r over whether the c a r r i e r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a p r o r a t a share of the insured's a t t o r n e y fees i n c u r r e d i n the process of obtaining a s e t t l e m e n t payment a g a i n s t w h i c h t h e c a r r i e r h a s a s s e r t e d a right of reimbursement. The common-fund exception as recognized i n Alabama i s d e r i v e d from n o t i o n s o f e q u i t y and, i n matters i n v o l v i n g i n s u r a n c e s u b r o g a t i o n , proceeds from t h e proposition share, t h a t when an i n s u r a n c e to the extent recovery carrier i t s insured of i t s subrogation achieves insured's In against attorney Government 859 So. 2d 1115, 1119 the case g i v i n g r i s e Company damaged, vehicle operated issued by ("State State was i n a December 2008 she was o c c u p y i n g by Amy Kirk Emps. of the I n s . Co. v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . to this Farm Farm"), that of the burden of i n c l u d i n g a pro r a t a share fee." to i n any a tortfeasor," appeal, ("the i n s u r e d " ) , who was i n s u r e d u n d e r an policy " i s entitled interest, "should bear a p r o p o r t i o n a t e share achieving that recovery Capulli, carrier Mutual injured, Tracy automobile-insurance Automobile collision was s t r u c k b y a s e c o n d 2 Insurance and h e r p r o p e r t y automobile ("the d r i v e r " ) . Mitchell The when was the automobile insured then 2100184 r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t h e r , who, a f t e r h a v i n g a g r e e d t o a contingent f e e o f o n e - t h i r d o f any r e c o v e r y (plus expenses), scene of records, interviewed the c o l l i s i o n , and reviewed the insured, own i n s u r e r , w i t h the medical-payments, the insured's records those with the insured. respect i n i t s policy, behalf the insured, of coverage limit) payments. i n medical f o rhaving two l e t t e r s States Mutual State Farm insured's including payments coverage c e r t a i n sums on $5,000 (the p e r t i n e n t a n d $7,992.90 caused t h e c o l l i s i o n , to the driver's l i a b i l i t y I n s u r a n c e Company asserted policy i n other Cotton rights from made u n d e r than States respect Cotton a f o r medical total Farm's t o payments payments, b u t S t a t e s n o t i f i e d S t a t e Farm t h a t " [ t ] h e b a l a n c e 3 Farm under t h e States acceded t o State sought w i t h other insurer, arising Cotton demand as t o t h e $7,992.50 coverages and S t a t e ("Cotton S t a t e s " ) , i n w h i c h subrogation a n d demanded payment o f $12,992.50. Cotton pursuant t o rental-car Farm p a i d Farm, S t a t e Farm f u r t h e r a s c e r t a i n e d t h a t t h e d r i v e r was responsible sent State and medical claim to State to the c o l l i s i o n ; collision, provisions investigated the gathered The i n s u r e d a l s o made an i n s u r a n c e her by t h e i n s u r e d of the 2100184 s u b r o g a t i o n f o r m e d i c a l payments coverages pending remains o u t s t a n d i n g the s e t t l e m [ e ] n t of the B o d i l y I n j u r y c l a i m w i t h [the insured] and h e r a t t o r n e y . " i n s u r e d ' s a t t o r n e y by l e t t e r State Farm then notified that i t "intend[ed] the to pursue a s u b r o g a t i o n c l a i m , w i t h o u t t h e n e e d f o r you t o r e p r e s e n t S t a t e Farm, f o r t h e " $5,000 requested medical the attorney jeopardize not t o [ i t s ] subrogation "retain[ed] an attorney payment; "take rights" State any Farm further a c t i o n which and a d v i s e d t h a t i f i t to represent [its] interests," i t would advise the insured's counsel of t h a t retention. The i n s u r e d ' s a t t o r n e y , i n S e p t e m b e r 2009, p r e p a r e d sent a demand-for-settlement letter to Cotton States insured's a t t o r n e y ' s demand-for-settlement of assured Cotton insured would potential subrogation a l l such The l e t t e r acknowledged claims and S t a t e s t h a t i f a s e t t l e m e n t was satisfy and seeking a payment o f t h e l i m i t s o f t h e d r i v e r ' s i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y . awareness may demands. liens and reached, the The insured's a t t o r n e y a l s o s e n t a c o p y o f t h a t demand l e t t e r t o S t a t e Farm and notified State Farm of the insured's c l a i m under the u n d e r i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t Farm policy. 4 intent t o make a coverage of the State 2100184 In October civil fictitiously from the insured initiated against action 2009, the d r i v e r , State named d e f e n d a n t s , the c o l l i s i o n against stating her Farm, tort multicount and claims t h e d r i v e r and t h e various stemming fictitiously named d e f e n d a n t s , a s s e r t i n g claims f o r underinsured-motorists ("UIM") b e n e f i t s against against State Farm, State alleging Farm, the and, i n a tort existence of f r a u d u l e n t , b a d - f a i t h r e f u s a l t o p a y an i n s u r a n c e conversion o f f u n d s stemming f r o m S t a t e the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t i t s subrogation Farm's count both c l a i m and a rejection doctrine. to dismiss the claims against i t ; as t o t h e t o r t c o u n t , Farm common-fund both that the of i n t e r e s t was s u b j e c t t o a r e d u c t i o n u n d e r t h e common-fund averred a S t a t e Farm moved State doctrine i n a p p l i c a b l e and t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l t h e o r i e s p l e a d e d was (i.e., c o n v e r s i o n , b a d - f a i t h r e f u s a l , and f r a u d ) d i d n o t s t a t e v a l i d claims. The t r i a l court denied The i n s u r e d and C o t t o n reached S t a t e s , on b e h a l f a t e n t a t i v e agreement w i t h settlement driver that motion a f t e r a hearing. of a l l a c t u a l State Farm the insured and p o t e n t i a l c l a i m s i n e x c h a n g e f o r a payment notified of the d r i v e r , o f $35,000. of the proposed 5 settlement, regarding against The a the insured and State 2100184 Farm, through i t s counsel, gave t h e i n s u r e d i t s c o n s e n t enter i n t o the settlement, but i t requested f u l l of i t s $5,000 Thereafter, pay R. payment the d r i v e r f o r the insured's filed dismissed governing as a p a r t y ; i n t e r p l e a d e r , and the t r i a l court t o Rule to granted a motion t h a t , as a m a t t e r to 22, A l a . thereafter be that motion, for a partial defendant. June 2010, t h e i n s u r e d f i l e d summary j u d g m e n t , c o n t e n d i n g expenses. an u n o p p o s e d m o t i o n s e e k i n g l e a v i n g S t a t e Farm as t h e o n l y named In reimbursement medical t h e d i s p u t e d $5,000 i n t o c o u r t p u r s u a n t C i v . P., to 1 of law, State Farm's r i g h t t o r e c o v e r i t s $5,000 m e d i c a l - e x p e n s e payment was s u b j e c t t o a p r o r a t a r e d u c t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s b a s e d upon the common-fund doctrine. State Farm filed a response i n o p p o s i t i o n to the insured's motion, a cross-motion partial asserted insured's summary against State UIM-benefits a c t i o n pursuant the t r i a l judgment i n i t s favor Farm, claims and a against on the seeking tort motion to State Farm t o R u l e 2 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P. a count sever the from the A f t e r a hearing, c o u r t d e n i e d t h e i n s u r e d ' s m o t i o n and g r a n t e d State A l t h o u g h t h e d r i v e r was l i s t e d as an a p p e l l e e i n t h e i n s u r e d ' s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , we h a v e r e s t y l e d t h e a p p e a l t o r e f l e c t the sole remaining r e a l p a r t i e s i n i n t e r e s t . 1 6 2100184 Farm's cross-motion on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e common-fund that court, its doctrine of that court's d i d not apply; conclusion i n the view of S t a t e Farm t o o k s u f f i c i e n t a f f i r m a t i v e a c t i o n on own b e h a l f to avoid t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e by v i r t u e of i t s statement t o counsel for the insured Farm w o u l d p r o t e c t i t s own i n t e r e s t s . that The t r i a l c o u r t f u r t h e r d i r e c t e d t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e Ala. State 54(b), R. C i v . P.; i t d i d n o t r u l e on t h e m o t i o n t o s e v e r . In their appellate briefs, the parties have 2 largely r e i t e r a t e d t h e i r o p p o s i n g p o s i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e common-fund d o c t r i n e t h a t they advanced i n t h e t r i a l p o s i t s t h a t t h e common-fund that i t mandates t h a t State court. The i n s u r e d d o c t r i n e a p p l i e s i n t h i s case and Farm's r i g h t t o recovery of i t s Although the t r i a l court's judgment r e f e r s t o i t s j u d g m e n t a s b e i n g i n f a v o r o f S t a t e Farm o n l y a s t o " t h e i s s u e o f t h e common f u n d d o c t r i n e " ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) , a n d a l t h o u g h R u l e 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n s may n o t p r o p e r l y be made a s t o o n l y p a r t o f a c l a i m , see g e n e r a l l y C e r t a i n U n d e r w r i t e r s at L l o y d ' s , London v . S o u t h e r n N a t u r a l Gas Co., 939 So. 2d 2 1 , 27-29 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) , t h e p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on t h e p a r t i e s ' summary-judgment m o t i o n s , c o u p l e d w i t h i t s d e c i s i o n n o t t o r u l e on t h e c o n t r a c t c l a i m s asserted a g a i n s t S t a t e Farm b y t h e i n s u r e d , was t o p r e c l u d e t h e i n s u r e d f r o m r e c o v e r i n g on any c l a i m s s t a t e d i n t h e t o r t c o u n t i n h e r complaint. We t h u s c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t f r o m w h i c h t h e i n s u r e d h a s t i m e l y a p p e a l e d i s f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 12-21-2. 2 7 2100184 $5,000 payment be s u b j e c t t o a p r o r a t a s h a r e o f t h e a t t o r n e y fees incurred trial court's i n obtaining i t ; i n the insured's j u d g m e n t must be r e v e r s e d view, the because the t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t p r o p e r l y a p p l y t h e common-fund d o c t r i n e . Farm defends insured's arguing active the t r i a l premise that that judgment by t h e common-fund (a) no "common participation common-fund court's fund" i n the settlement rejecting the doctrine arose; State applies, (b) S t a t e process Farm's renders the d o c t r i n e i n a p p l i c a b l e ; a n d (c) t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e S t a t e Farm p o l i c y a b r o g a t e a n y a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e commonfund d o c t r i n e i n t h e context As we h e l d requirements context i n Capulli, f o r applying of the p a r t i e s ' supra, there t h e common-fund dispute. a r e b u t two doctrine core i n the o f an i n s u r e r ' s r i g h t o f r e p a y m e n t s t e m m i n g f r o m i t s subrogation t o t h e r i g h t s o f i t s i n s u r e d by v i r t u e o f p a y i n g a c l a i m under t h e a p p l i c a b l e p o l i c y o f insurance: must be a ' f u n d ' (2) t h e a t t o r n e y ' s "(1) there from which t o compensate t h e a t t o r n e y ; and s e r v i c e s must d i r e c t l y b e n e f i t t h e f u n d . " 859 So. 2d a t 1122. We d i s a g r e e with S t a t e Farm t h a t , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , no " f u n d " came i n t o b e i n g i n t h i s c a s e i n l i g h t of t h e undisputed facts that (a) t h e i n s u r e d r e t a i n e d 8 counsel 2100184 to r e p r e s e n t her i n t e r e s t s i n o b t a i n i n g compensation from the d r i v e r f o r t h e i n s u r e d ' s i n j u r i e s and l o s s e s stemming f r o m t h e automobile collision diligently i n v e s t i g a t e d the merits against the d r i v e r , liability-insurance civil (c) sent (b) c o u n s e l a demand carrier counsel f o r the insured from Cotton S t a t e s court t o be subjected parties to this appeal). i n noting that Cotton of f o r the insured the letter (Cotton a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r damages settlement into at issue; insured's case to the d r i v e r ' s S t a t e s ) , and b r o u g h t a on t h e i n s u r e d ' s b e h a l f ; and u l t i m a t e l y secured a $35,000 ( o f w h i c h $5,000 was l a t e r p a i d t o the competing Although claims of the S t a t e Farm may be c o r r e c t S t a t e s h a d i n d i c a t e d t o S t a t e Farm i t s a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e d r i v e r was a t f a u l t i n the collision collision, on there January 9, 2009, i s no i n d i c a t i o n the insured h i r e d counsel had a g r e e d t o pay a n y t h i n g a few days after i n the record that on J a n u a r y 6, 2009, C o t t o n the before States t o S t a t e Farm o r t o t h e i n s u r e d ; further, the record a f f i r m a t i v e l y i n d i c a t e s that Cotton States declined to demand against Cotton meet State States Farm's direct to the extent that subrogation State Farm sought r e p a y m e n t f o r i t s $5,000 m e d i c a l - b e n e f i t s payment on b e h a l f o f 9 2100184 the insured. We advanced by S t a t e thus cannot Farm t h a t agree with the insured's the proposition attorney d i d not e x e r t e f f o r t s t h a t gave r i s e t o a f u n d t h a t w o u l d u l t i m a t e l y have t h e c a p a c i t y t o b e n e f i t t h e i n t e r e s t s o f b o t h t h e i n s u r e d and S t a t e Farm ( w h i c h a s s e r t e d a c l a i m t o t h e f u n d i m m e d i a t e l y upon receiving notice that a between t h e i n s u r e d and C o t t o n settlement had been States). H a v i n g d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a common f u n d d i d i n d e e d next consider whether State reached Farm i s n o n e t h e l e s s a r i s e , we entitled to a v o i d t h e e f f e c t o f t h e common-fund d o c t r i n e b a s e d upon e i t h e r o f t h e two r a t i o n a l e s i t h a s a d v a n c e d . First, we n o t e that S t a t e Farm c o r r e c t l y c i t e s Ex p a r t e S t a t e Farm F i r e & C a s u a l t y Co. , 764 So. 2d 543 ( A l a . 2000), f o r the proposition l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s i n h e r i n g i n the law of subrogation, the general precept t h a t an i n s u r e r t h a t h a s p a i d i t s i n s u r e d h a s no s u b r o g a t i o n harmed t h e i n s u r e d (i.e., until has been f u l l y that such as claims of r i g h t s a g a i n s t a t o r t f e a s o r who the insured has been "made w h o l e " c o m p e n s a t e d ) , may p r o p e r l y be m o d i f i e d o r a b r o g a t e d b y c o n t r a r y p r o v i s i o n s a g r e e d upon b y p a r t i e s t o a written contract. A l t h o u g h we a g r e e w i t h t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n , and n o t e t h a t S t a t e Farm's p o l i c y c o n t a i n s 10 language expressly 2100184 p r o v i d i n g t h a t S t a t e Farm's s u b r o g a t i o n rights as t o payments made on b e h a l f o f any p e r s o n a p p l y " r e g a r d l e s s o f whether o r not t h e person ... t o o r f o r whom [ i t makes] payment i s f u l l y c o m p e n s a t e d f o r damages s u s t a i n e d , " we do n o t a g r e e w i t h State Farm's u l t i m a t e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t i t s p o l i c y s i m i l a r l y a b r o g a t e s the common-fund The p o l i c y context doctrine. language relied upon b y S t a t e Farm i n t h i s provides: " I f we a r e o b l i g a t e d u n d e r t h i s p o l i c y t o make payment t o o r f o r a p e r s o n o r o r g a n i z a t i o n who h a s a l e g a l r i g h t t o c o l l e c t from another person o r o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e n we w i l l be s u b r o g a t e d t o t h a t r i g h t t o t h e e x t e n t o f o u r payment. This applies regardless o f whether or not the person or o r g a n i z a t i o n t o o r f o r whom we make payment i s f u l l y c o m p e n s a t e d f o r damages s u s t a i n e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t . " I f we make payment u n d e r t h i s p o l i c y a n d t h e p e r s o n o r o r g a n i z a t i o n t o o r f o r whom we make payment r e c o v e r s o r has r e c o v e r e d from another p e r s o n o r o r g a n i z a t i o n , then the person or o r g a n i z a t i o n t o or f o r whom we make payment must: "(1) h o l d i n t r u s t any r e c o v e r y ; a n d "(2) r e i m b u r s e payment. f o r us t h e p r o c e e d s o f us t o t h e e x t e n t o f our "This a p p l i e s r e g a r d l e s s o f whether or not the p e r s o n o r o r g a n i z a t i o n t o o r f o r whom we make 11 2100184 payment i s f u l l y c o m p e n s a t e d f o r damages i n the accident." (Emphasis o m i t t e d . ) sustained We n o t e t h a t , u n l i k e t h e e x p r e s s negation o f t h e "make-whole" d o c t r i n e , t h e S t a t e Farm p o l i c y does n o t expressly refer to p o t e n t i a l attorney-fee Although State Farm cites v a r i o u s Alabama c i r c u i t - c o u r t three claims opinions judges tending i n any way. issued by t o support i t s p o s i t i o n t h a t the p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n s quoted h e r e i n negate the common-fund doctrine, precedential authority." O c t o b e r 1, 2010] In f a c t , as t h i s "a circuit Taylor So. 3d court v. S t a t e , , case ... [Ms. has no CR-05-0066, ( A l a . C r i m . App. c o u r t has n o t e d , t h e e q u i t a b l e r i g h t 2010). o f an i n s u r e d t o w i t h h o l d a p r o r a t a a t t o r n e y f e e u n d e r t h e commonfund doctrine " [ i ] n the case o f an insured's recovery of damages i n w h i c h t h e i n s u r e r has an i n t e r e s t as s u b r o g e e a f t e r payment t o t h e i n s u r e d " may a r i s e " a s i d e f r o m c o n t r a c t . " Blue C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a v. Freeman, 447 So. 2d 757, 759 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1983) ( c i t i n g S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co. v. C l i n t o n , 267 Or. 653, 518 P.2d 645 (1974)). No f e w e r t h a n three states' highest courts o f Oregon (Clinton, Or. those 267 a t 662, 518 P.2d a t 6 4 9 ) , M a i n e (York I n s . Group o f M a i n e v. Van H a l l , 704 A.2d 366, 369 (Me. 1 9 9 7 ) ) , 12 and V e r m o n t ( G u i e l 2100184 v. Allstate (2000)), 3 I n s . Co., 170 V t . 464, have h e l d t h a t g o v e r n i n g 469-70, 756 A.2d 781 provisions of statutes or c o n t r a c t s p r o v i d i n g f o r an i n s u r e r ' s r i g h t o f r e i m b u r s e m e n t t o the extent application o f i t s payment do not unambiguously o f t h e common-fund obtained b y an i n s u r e d that benefit of that i n s u r e r . doctrine negate the as t o any i s t o be h e l d recovery i n trust f o r the I n t h e absence of language i n t h e S t a t e Farm p o l i c y d e m o n s t r a t i n g a c l e a r i n t e n t t o n e g a t e t h e application recovery of the common-fund doctrine to an insured's o f damages f r o m a t h i r d p a r t y , we a r e p e r s u a d e d t h a t t h e mere p r e s e n c e o f s u b r o g a t i o n and reimbursement c l a u s e s i n t h e S t a t e Farm p o l i c y do n o t s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f S t a t e Farm. We l a s t c o n s i d e r of S t a t e Farm's a r g u m e n t t h a t , as a m a t t e r l a w , t h e common-fund d o c t r i n e was n e g a t e d b y i t s " a c t i v e participation." "active-participation" As we noted defense in Capulli, to the a p p l i c a b i l i t y the of the common-fund d o c t r i n e r e q u i r e s a s h o w i n g t h a t " t h e p a r t y s o u g h t t o be c h a r g e d w i t h t h e a t t o r n e y fee a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n I n C a p u l l i , we c i t e d G u i e l w i t h a p p r o v a l as t o s e v e r a l aspects o f i t s d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e common-fund doctrine. C a p u l l i , 859 So. 2d a t 1125, 1126. 3 13 2100184 producing the participated fund," i n or i.e., that i t s efforts the insurer substantially "'actively contributed the c r e a t i o n or p r e s e r v a t i o n of the subrogated fund.'" 2d a t 1126 ( q u o t i n g Johnny P a r k e r , Coming o f Age Rev. 313, i n t h e Law 335 (1998)) The Common Fund of Insurance Subrogation, Doctrine: 31 I n d . i s the $35,000 r e c o v e r y o b t a i n e d by t h e i n s u r e d , t h r o u g h h e r pursuant to the settlement aid the record, L. gross counsel, reached w i t h the d r i v e r ' s i n s u r e r , As t o t h a t r e c o v e r y , i n s u r e d or i t s a t t o r n e y ; State So. (emphasis added). H e r e , as we h a v e n o t e d , t h e p e r t i n e n t " f u n d " Cotton States. 859 to Farm d i d n o t i n v e s t i g a t i n g the insured's S t a t e Farm d i d n o t h i n g f o r a l l t h a t appears i n assist the insured's counsel p o t e n t i a l tort claim against to the in the d r i v e r o r i n p r o s e c u t i n g t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d r i v e r once i t was filed. Although State insured that i t intended and 4 notified t o p u r s u e i t s own i n d i c a t e d that counsel's be n e c e s s a r y Farm counsel for subrogation claim s e r v i c e s on i t s b e h a l f w o u l d b e f o r e s u i t had b e e n f i l e d and C o t t o n the States not had As t h e Supreme C o u r t o f I d a h o n o t e d i n Wensman v. F a r m e r s Ins. Co. o f I d a h o , 134 I d a h o 148, 152, 997 P.2d 609, 613 (2000) ( q u o t i n g M a h l e r v. S z u c s , 135 Wash. 2d 398, 427, 957 P.2d 632, 648 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ) , S t a t e Farm's r e j e c t i o n o f t h e i n s u r e d ' s a t t o r n e y as i t s own r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i s n o t p e r t i n e n t i n t h i s 4 14 2100184 agreed to settle State Farm the insured's was content to claims against assert a the driver, claim for full reimbursement a g a i n s t t h e recovery o b t a i n e d a f t e r t h e recovery became a r e a l i t y insistence that rather than a contingency. i t s separate State extrajudicial Farm's dealings with C o t t o n S t a t e s t o o b t a i n reimbursement, and i t s d e c l a r a t i o n s o f its intent t o seek full reimbursement, amount to "active p a r t i c i p a t i o n " s i m p l y does n o t c o m p o r t w i t h t h e n e c e s s i t y t h a t the doctrine helped yield create appears occurred from t o a showing or preserve the record that a subrogated i n this case an i n s u r e r h a s fund; Farm, a s i n A l s t o n v. S t a t e Farm M u t u a l A u t o m o b i l e Insurance of note than that rather, i t State Co. , 660 So. 2d 1314, more only 1316 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) , d i d "rel[y] on [an i n s u r e d ' s ] nothing attorney g e n e r a t e t h e b e n e f i t s t h a t i t r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e common Based upon the foregoing conclude that the t r i a l court facts and common-fund d o c t r i n e d i d n o t a p p l y fund." authorities, erred i n determining to we that the t o t h e $5,000 p a i d into c o u r t by t h e d r i v e r p u r s u a n t t o t h e s e t t l e m e n t reached between r e g a r d : "'Consent t o c o u n s e l by t h e b e n e f i t e d p a r t y i s n o t r e q u i r e d i n common f u n d c a s e s . I f c o n s e n t were r e q u i r e d , t h e r e w o u l d be no common f u n d r u l e a t a l l . ' " 15 2100184 the d r i v e r and t h e i n s u r e d . We r e v e r s e t h a t j u d g m e n t , a n d we remand t h e c a s e f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without 16 writing.

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.