Macon County and the Macon County Commission v. Brittany Murphy (Appeal from Macon Circuit Court: CV-10-900007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/20/2013 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 , 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 ((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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120755 Macon County and the Macon County Commission v. B r i t t a n y Murphy Appeal from Macon C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900007) 2120756 Macon County and the Macon County Commission v. W i l l i e L. Buchanna, J r . Appeal from Macon C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900008) 2120757 Macon County and the Macon County Commission v. Willie Cole Appeal from Macon C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900009) 2120758 Macon County and the Macon County Commission v. R e g i n a l d Huffman Appeal from Macon C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900010) 2120759 Macon County and the Macon County Commission v. M i c h a e l Johnson Appeal from Macon C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900011) 2 2120760 Macon County and the Macon County Commission v. J e f f e r y McKinstry Appeal from Macon C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900012) 2120761 Macon County and the Macon County Commission v. L e v i Moore Appeal from Macon C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900013) 2120762 Macon County and the Macon County Commission v. Edward S t i n s o n Appeal from Macon C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900014) 3 2120763 Macon County and the Macon County Commission v. E r i k Whitlow Appeal from Macon C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900015) 2120764 Macon County and the Macon County Commission v. Celeste Garrett Appeal from Macon C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900016) MOORE, J u d g e . Macon Commission joint ("the C o u n t y " ) them Cole, McKinstry, and t h e Macon County ("the C o m m i s s i o n " ) a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e n i a l o f t h e i r m o t i o n s t o compel against Willie County arbitration by B r i t t a n y Reginald Levi Moore, Murphy, Huffman, Edward 4 of the claims Willie Michael Stinson, asserted L . Buchanna, J r . , Johnson, Erik Jeffery Whitlow, and 2120755; 2120761; 2120756; 2120762; Celeste Garrett plaintiffs"). 1 2120757; 2120758; 2120759; 2120763; and 2120764 2120760; ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " t h e We reverse. Background On Family J a n u a r y 14, Life County, Assurance and contract; 2010, the the p l a i n t i f f s Company Commission negligent, of Columbus asserting reckless, each sued American ("AFLAC"), claims and of the breach intentional of fraud; f r a u d u l e n t d e c e i t , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, §§ 6-5-103 and -104; f r a u d u l e n t s u p p r e s s i o n , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 6¬ 5-102; c o n v e r s i o n ; b r e a c h o f f i d u c i a r y duty; bad f a i t h ; and common-law n e g l i g e n c e a n d / o r w a n t o n n e s s . The p l a i n t i f f s e m p l o y e d by alleged that, as o f J u l y 2007, t h e y the County or the Commission; that, at were various t i m e s , AFLAC h a d o f f e r e d t h e e m p l o y e e s o f t h e C o u n t y a n d t h e Commission a supplemental insurance p o l i c y ; that the County and t h e C o m m i s s i o n h a d a g r e e d t o d e d u c t t h e i n s u r a n c e due f o r t h e AFLAC payroll agreed checks; to All appeal. 1 remit insurance and t h a t those policies from premiums i t s employees' t h e C o u n t y and t h e C o m m i s s i o n premiums t o AFLAC on behalf of had the o f t h e c a s e s have b e e n c o n s o l i d a t e d f o r p u r p o s e s o f 5 2120755; 2120756; 2120757; 2120758; 2120759; 2120761; 2120762; 2120763; and 2120764 employees, i n c l u d i n g the p l a i n t i f f s . alleged the that, beginning Commission had at varying deducted 2120760; The p l a i n t i f f s times, amounts the County and/or for their premiums f r o m t h e i r p a y c h e c k s b u t t h a t , b e g i n n i n g County and/or the Commission d e d u c t e d amounts t o A F L A C . they discovered i n 2009 had failed The p l a i n t i f f s that their further to insurance i n 2007, t h e remit a l l the also alleged insurance that policies with AFLAC h a d l a p s e d due t o nonpayment o f premiums, p r o m p t i n g them to f i l e their respective complaints. On M a r c h 3, 2010, AFLAC moved t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s and t o s t a y t h e t r i a l - c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , t o d i s m i s s t h o s e p r o c e e d i n g s . AFLAC r e l i e d on the express each l a n g u a g e o f an a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t , w h i c h of the p l a i n t i f f s respective application had e x e c u t e d for the along AFLAC a r b i t r a t i o n agreements s t a t e , i n p e r t i n e n t with h i s or her policy. Those part: " I a g r e e t h a t b i n d i n g a r b i t r a t i o n w i l l be u s e d t o resolve the f o l l o w i n g claims, disputes or l a w s u i t s : "1. Any and a l l c l a i m s , d i s p u t e s o r l a w s u i t s t h a t I have c o n c e r n i n g my AFLAC p o l i c y ; and/or "2. Any c l a i m s , d i s p u t e s o r l a w s u i t s t h a t I have c o n c e r n i n g any r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t my AFLAC i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y c r e a t e s ; a n d / o r 6 2120755; 2120756; 2120757; 2120758; 2120759; 2120760; 2120761; 2120762; 2120763; a n d 2120764 "3. Any c l a i m s , d i s p u t e s o r l a w s u i t s c o n c e r n i n g the v a l i d i t y o f t h i s a r b i t r a t i o n agreement; and/or "4. Any a n d a l l c l a i m s , d i s p u t e s o r t h a t I h a v e t h a t come up f r o m t h e s a l e o f t h e p o l i c y b y any a g e n t o r o f AFLAC, i n c l u d i n g any a l l e g a t i o n or improper a c t . lawsuits proposed employee of fraud " " B o t h I a n d AFLAC a g r e e a n d u n d e r s t a n d t h a t a l l d i s p u t e s a r i s i n g u n d e r l a w , w h e t h e r made b y t h e c o u r t s o r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e o r any o t h e r l a w w h i c h includes but i s not l i m i t e d to a l l contract, t o r t and t h i r d - p a r t y d i s p u t e s , w i l l be d e c i d e d b y u s e o f binding arbitration." In of s u p p o r t o f i t s m o t i o n , AFLAC s u b m i t t e d Virgil president R. Miller, of client who was e m p l o y e d services. with the a f f i d a v i t AFLAC In his affidavit, e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t AFLAC i s a c o r p o r a t i o n o r g a n i z e d in the sale o f supplemental i nGeorgia; insurance Miller and e x i s t i n g u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f N e b r a s k a ; t h a t AFLAC i t s p r i n c i p a l place o f business as v i c e maintains t h a t AFLAC e n g a g e s policies i n a l l 50 s t a t e s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ; t h a t c l a i m s on AFLAC p o l i c i e s a r e processed i nGeorgia; were sent from a n d t h a t premiums p a i d b y t h e p l a i n t i f f s Alabama to the corporate Georgia. 7 headquarters i n 2120755; 2120761; On 2120756; 2120762; March 2120757; 2120758; 2120759; 2120763; and 2120764 5, 2010, the County and the Commission f i l e d j o i n t m o t i o n s t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n c l a i m s a g a i n s t them. the arbitration 2120760; also o f the p l a i n t i f f s ' The C o u n t y and t h e C o m m i s s i o n r e l i e d on agreement e x e c u t e d by the plaintiffs in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e i r i n s u r a n c e a p p l i c a t i o n s ; t h e C o u n t y and the Commission submitted by arbitration. also AFLAC The relied in on support plaintiffs the of other documentation i t s motions opposed the j o i n t to compel motions to c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n f i l e d b y t h e C o u n t y and t h e C o m m i s s i o n . On November 5, 2012, the trial court granted AFLAC's m o t i o n t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n i n e a c h p l a i n t i f f ' s c a s e , and, on December 26, 2012, t h e t r i a l court denied the j o i n t motion to c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n f i l e d b y t h e C o u n t y and t h e C o m m i s s i o n i n each case. The C o u n t y a n d t h e C o m m i s s i o n t i m e l y f i l e d notices of appeal. Standard of Review "'This Court reviews de novo the d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n . P a r k w a y Dodge, I n c . v. Y a r b r o u g h , 779 So. 2d 1205 ( A l a . 2000) . A m o t i o n t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n i s analogous to a motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . T r a n S o u t h F i n . C o r p . v. B e l l , 739 So. 2d 1110, 1114 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . The p a r t y s e e k i n g t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n has the burden of p r o v i n g the e x i s t e n c e of a contract calling for arbitration and 8 their 2120755; 2120756; 2120757; 2120758; 2120759; 2120760; 2120761; 2120762; 2120763; and 2120764 proving that the contract evidences a t r a n s a c t i o n a f f e c t i n g i n t e r s t a t e commerce. I d . " [ A ] f t e r a motion t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n has b e e n made and s u p p o r t e d , t h e b u r d e n i s on t h e non-movant t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t the supposed a r b i t r a t i o n agreement i s not v a l i d o r does n o t a p p l y t o t h e d i s p u t e i n q u e s t i o n . " J i m B u r k e A u t o m o t i v e , I n c . v. B e a v e r s , 674 So. 2d 1260, 1265 n.1 (Ala. 1995) (opinion on application for rehearing).'" E l i z a b e t h Homes, L.L.C. v. 2003) 277, (quoting 280 (Ala. Gantt, Fleetwood Enters., 882 So. Inc. v. 2d 313, Bruno, 315 784 (Ala. So. 2d 2000)). Analysis I n G r e e n T r e e F i n a n c i a l C o r p . o f A l a b a m a v. V i n t s o n , So. 2d 497, 501-02 ( A l a . 1999), t h i s Court stated: "Section 2 of the Federal A r b i t r a t i o n Act ('FAA') p r o v i d e s t h a t '[a] w r i t t e n p r o v i s i o n i n any ... contract evidencing a transaction involving [ i n t e r s t a t e ] commerce t o s e t t l e by a r b i t r a t i o n a c o n t r o v e r s y t h e r e a f t e r a r i s i n g out of such c o n t r a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n ... s h a l l be v a l i d , i r r e v o c a b l e , and e n f o r c e a b l e . ' 9 U.S.C. § 2. M o r e o v e r , t h e Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s has s t a t e d t h a t t h e FAA establishes a strong federal policy favoring a r b i t r a t i o n . Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. M e r c u r y C o n s t r . C o r p . , 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S. C t . 927, 74 L. Ed. 2d 765 (1983) (the FAA ' e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t , as a m a t t e r o f f e d e r a l l a w , any d o u b t s c o n c e r n i n g the s c o p e o f a r b i t r a b l e i s s u e s s h o u l d be r e s o l v e d i n favor of a r b i t r a t i o n ' ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , t r i a l courts a r e r e q u i r e d t o s t a y o r d i s m i s s p r o c e e d i n g s and t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n when t h e p a r t i e s have entered i n t o a v a l i d c o n t r a c t c o n t a i n i n g an arbitration 9 753 2120755; 2120756; 2120757; 2120758; 2120759; 2120761; 2120762; 2120763; and 2120764 2120760; a g r e e m e n t , and a t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n i s s u b j e c t t o a p p e a l . See, e.g., P a t r i c k Home C e n t e r , I n c . v. K a r r , 730 So. 2d 1171, 1172 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . " As t h e p a r t i e s s e e k i n g and the Commission existence bore of a c o n t r a c t t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n , the i n i t i a l calling burden the County of proving for arbitration and that the c o n t r a c t evidenced a t r a n s a c t i o n a f f e c t i n g commerce. of I n g r a n t i n g AFLAC's the p l a i n t i f f s ' that the claims, insurance applications and evidenced transactions i n i n t e r s t a t e the court proving interstate m o t i o n s t o compel the t r i a l the arbitration must have policies found at issue commerce, as r e q u i r e d by FAA. In s e e k i n g t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n of the claims asserted a g a i n s t them, t h e C o u n t y and t h e C o m m i s s i o n r e l i e d on t h e same e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b y AFLAC t o e s t a b l i s h for insurance necessary and t h e r e s u l t i n g nexus with t h a t the a p p l i c a t i o n s insurance interstate commerce. C o u n t y and t h e C o m m i s s i o n r e a s s e r t that with the interstate disputed that commerce assertion. exists; We, policies On bore the appeal, the necessary plaintiffs therefore, conclude the nexus have not that the C o u n t y and t h e C o m m i s s i o n met t h e i r b u r d e n o f p r o o f as t o t h e interstate-commerce issue. 10 2120755; 2120761; We 2120756; 2120762; 2120757; 2120758; 2120759; 2120763; and 2120764 next address whether the County sufficiently established that calling arbitration of for p l a i n t i f f s a g a i n s t them. that the language of enough t o encompass allow the them County arbitration existence the claims the of Commission a contract asserted by the The C o u n t y and t h e C o m m i s s i o n a s s e r t the arbitration agreements i s broad t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s a g a i n s t them and t o to invoke and the and 2120760; the the a r b i t r a t i o n Commission agreements. In are p r o v i s i o n , even not their though s i g n a t o r i e s to appellees' brief, the the p l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t the a r b i t r a t i o n agreements are not b r o a d enough t o encompass their claims against t h e C o u n t y and t h e C o m m i s s i o n b e c a u s e t h e y do n o t e x p r e s s l y r e f e r t o t h e C o u n t y o r t h e C o m m i s s i o n and t h e l a n g u a g e i n t h e a g r e e m e n t s n a r r o w i n s c o p e t o encompass any claims but those i s too asserted a g a i n s t AFLAC. We r e c o g n i z e that, with t h a t a r b i t r a t i o n i s a m a t t e r o f c o n t r a c t and certain limited beneficiary theory exceptions, or a theory i.e., a third-party of e q u i t a b l e estoppel i n t e r t w i n i n g of c l a i m s , the general or the rule i s that a party may n o t be c o m p e l l e d t o a r b i t r a t e a d i s p u t e u n l e s s he o r she has a g r e e d t o do so. See Ex p a r t e 11 Cain, 838 So. 2d 1020, 1026 2120755; 2120756; 2120757; 2120758; 2120759; 2120761; 2120762; 2120763; and 2120764 (Ala. 2 0 0 2 ) ; a n d Ex p a r t e L o v e j o y , 2120760; 790 So. 2d 933, 937 ( A l a . 2000). I n G r e e n T r e e , s u p r a , o u r supreme c o u r t stated: "Whether an a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n encompasses a party's claims 'is a matter of contract interpretation, which i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s g u i d e d by t h e i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , and w h i c h i n t e n t , a b s e n t a m b i g u i t y i n t h e c l a u s e , i s e v i d e n c e d by t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f t h e c l a u s e . ' A l l i e d - B r u c e T e r m i n i x Cos. v. Dobson, 684 So. 2d 102, 110 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . " 753 So. 2d a t 505. Thus, we review the a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t s and t h e a l l e g a t i o n s language of the of the p l a i n t i f f s ' c o m p l a i n t s t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e i r c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e C o u n t y and the Commission fall within the plain language of their a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t s o r i f one o f t h e l i m i t e d e x c e p t i o n s t o the general rule In r e c o g n i z e d by o u r supreme c o u r t connection insurance policy, with their the p l a i n t i f f s agreement r e q u i r i n g applications applies. f o r an e a c h e x e c u t e d an a r b i t r a t i o n them t o a r b i t r a t e the following: "1. Any and a l l c l a i m s , d i s p u t e s , o r l a w s u i t s t h a t I have c o n c e r n i n g my AFLAC p o l i c y ; and/or "2. Any c l a i m s , d i s p u t e s o r l a w s u i t s t h a t I have c o n c e r n i n g any r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t my AFLAC i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y c r e a t e s ; a n d / o r 12 AFLAC 2120755; 2120756; 2120757; 2120758; 2120759; 2120760; 2120761; 2120762; 2120763; a n d 2120764 "3. Any c l a i m s , d i s p u t e s o r l a w s u i t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f my a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t ; and/or "4. Any a n d a l l c l a i m s , d i s p u t e s o r t h a t I have t h a t come up f r o m t h e s a l e o f t h e p o l i c y b y any a g e n t o r o f AFLAC, i n c l u d i n g any a l l e g a t i o n or improper a c t . lawsuits proposed employee of fraud " " B o t h I a n d AFLAC a g r e e a n d u n d e r s t a n d t h a t a l l d i s p u t e s a r i s i n g u n d e r l a w , w h e t h e r made b y t h e c o u r t s o r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e o r any o t h e r l a w w h i c h includes but i s not l i m i t e d to a l l contract, t o r t and t h i r d p a r t y d i s p u t e s , w i l l be d e c i d e d b y t h e u s e of b i n d i n g a r b i t r a t i o n . " In their complaints, the p l a i n t i f f s alleged that they " p u r c h a s e d s a i d i n s u r a n c e p r o d u c t s f r o m t h e D e f e n d a n t AFLAC b y and through Commission, i t s agents [and t h a t ] and s e r v a n t s , the [ p l a i n t i f f s the County were] told and t h e that the premiums f o r s a i d c o v e r a g e w o u l d be p a y r o l l d e d u c t e d f r o m t h e [plaintiffs'] p a y c h e c k [ s ] and r e m i t t e d by t h e County and t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o D e f e n d a n t AFLAC." the The p l a i n t i f f s C o u n t y a n d t h e C o m m i s s i o n were breached their fraudulently and/or agreement "while collection or otherwise acting representatives and r e m i s s i o n liable of Defendant of insurance 13 because acted as a g e n t s , alleged AFLAC they had wrongfully servants, ... premiums." that or employees f o r the 2120755; 2120756; 2120757; 2120758; 2120759; 2120760; 2120761; 2120762; 2120763; and 2120764 The 1140 case o f ECS, ( A l a . 2003), I n c . v. addresses Goff Group, Inc., 880 2d similar issues substantially So. to the i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d i n these c o n s o l i d a t e d appeals. In Inc., parties G o f f Group, (hereinafter fraud, referred tortious relationship, competition, "tortious I n c . , s u e d ECS, collectively interference with the tort violation training of of and c l a i m s were b a s e d on ECS, to I n c . , and trade were parties to a i n v o l v e d i n the collected portion was not premiums secrets, of those a agreement. party ECS the conversion, I d . at 1143. G o f f and t h e I_d. a t 1143. which then contract or to Goff, insurance which Although Goff forwarded insurance and Goff's arrangement i n v o l v i n g arrangement premiums t o t h e to unfair c o n t r a c t u a l agreement, business to alleging conspiracy, supervision." a business "ECS"), contractual/business outrage, i n c l u d e d an a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n . was a and c e r t a i n i n s u r a n c e c o m p a n i e s . companies as related ECS, forwarded a certain companies the ECS arbitration Id. ECS moved t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n o f G o f f ' s c l a i m s , and trial ECS court denied t h a t motion. supreme c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t ECS 14 I d . a t 1145. was entitled the On a p p e a l , our to invoke the 2120755; 2120756; 2120757; 2120758; 2120759; 2120761; 2120762; 2120763; and 2120764 arbitration a g r e e m e n t , d e s p i t e i t s s t a t u s as a because the language of the a r b i t r a t i o n r e s t r i c t i v e as t o p r e c l u d e a g a i n s t ECS by G o f f , the 2120760; business a g r e e m e n t was n o t so a r b i t r a t i o n of the claims Goff's contract nonsignatory, claims between a g a i n s t ECS Goff and asserted arose the out of insurance c o m p a n i e s , G o f f ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t ECS were i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h i t s claims against agreement, would be the and G o f f ' s resolved other signatories claims in arbitration the arbitration the other against to signatories and, as a result, Goff's c l a i m s a g a i n s t ECS must a l s o be r e s o l v e d i n a r b i t r a t i o n . at Id. 1146-48. As in ECS, Inc., the language of the arbitration a g r e e m e n t s a t i s s u e i n t h e s e c a s e s i s n o t so r e s t r i c t i v e as t o preclude arbitration of the p l a i n t i f f s ' C o u n t y and t h e C o m m i s s i o n . claims against A summary r e v i e w o f t h e the complaints r e v e a l t h a t the c l a i m s a s s e r t e d by the p l a i n t i f f s a g a i n s t the County and the applications created proposed include by Commission and p o l i c i e s , t h e AFLAC sale of clearly policies, policies allegations concern of by fraud 15 relate and an and the AFLAC to relationships clearly alleged insurance relate AFLAC improper to the agent and actions; the 2120755; 2120761; 2120756; 2120762; plaintiffs' c o u l d be the 2120757; 2120763; 2120758; 2120759; and 2120764 c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e C o u n t y and t h e C o m m i s s i o n c h a r a c t e r i z e d as t h i r d - p a r t y d i s p u t e s s a l e o f AFLAC i n s u r a n c e the 2120760; arbitration policies. agreements is not Thus, so also arising from the language of restrictive as to p r e c l u d e a r b i t r a t i o n of the c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t the County and t h e C o m m i s s i o n , e v e n t h o u g h t h e C o u n t y and t h e C o m m i s s i o n are not s i g n a t o r i e s to those agreements. A l s o s i m i l a r to the f a c t u a l the arise claims asserted against s c e n a r i o i n ECS, I n c . , s u p r a , the out of the p l a i n t i f f s ' County and underlying the Commission contracts with the s i g n a t o r y to the a r b i t r a t i o n agreements, i . e . , the p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e C o u n t y and t h e C o m m i s s i o n a r i s e plaintiffs' resulting a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r insurance insurance policies with out of the AFLAC i s s u e d by AFLAC. and the Moreover, the plaintiffs' c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e C o u n t y and t h e C o m m i s s i o n a r e intertwined with their claims against AFLAC because those c l a i m s a l l e g e t h a t t h e C o u n t y and t h e C o m m i s s i o n w e r e , a t a l l relevant times, a c t i n g as AFLAC's a g e n t s . the p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e C o u n t y and t h e can be resolved without reference to We fail the t o see how Commission plaintiffs' a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r i n s u r a n c e w i t h AFLAC, t h e p o l i c i e s i s s u e d by 16 2120755; 2120761; 2120756; 2120762; 2120757; 2120758; 2120759; 2120763; a n d 2120764 2120760; AFLAC t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s , a n d t h e r o l e p l a y e d b y t h e C o u n t y a n d the Commission i n o b t a i n i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g We agree w i t h t h e County language of the a r b i t r a t i o n t h a t i t i s b r o a d enough a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them. those p o l i c i e s . and t h e Commission agreements t o encompass that the i s n o t ambiguous a n d the p l a i n t i f f s ' claims Because t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s against AFLAC w i l l be r e s o l v e d i n a r b i t r a t i o n a n d b e c a u s e t h o s e claims are i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s a g a i n s t the County and t h e Commission, the p l a i n t i f f s must a l s o resolve their c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e County and t h e Commission i n a r b i t r a t i o n . We, t h e r e f o r e , r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f t h e m o t i o n s to compel a r b i t r a t i o n We remand this f i l e d by t h e County and t h e Commission. the causes f o r e n t r y o f an o r d e r consistent opinion. 2120755 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 2120756 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 2120757 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 2120758 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 2120759 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 2120760 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 2120761 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 17 with 2120755; 2120756; 2120757; 2120758; 2120759; 2120761; 2120762; 2120763; a n d 2120764 2120760; 2120762 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 2120763 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 2120764 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. P i t t m a n , Thomas, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 18 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.