Robert McDaniel and Shirley McDaniel v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/12/2011 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 , 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 be 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, 2011 2100622 Robert McDaniel and S h i r l e y McDaniel v. H a r l e y s v i l l e Mutual Insurance Company Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-901128) THOMPSON, Presiding Robert McDaniel Judge. and S h i r l e y McDaniel appeal from a judgment e n t e r e d by t h e Madison favor of Harleysville Mutual ("the M c D a n i e l s " ) C i r c u i t Court i n Insurance Company 2100622 ("Harleysville"). that F o r the reasons judgment a n d remand stated herein, t h e cause f o r f u r t h e r we reverse proceedings. On A u g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e M c D a n i e l s f i l e d a n a c t i o n Harleysville and B r i a n Homes, I n c . ( " B r i a n a l l e g e d that they had entered for the construction others had f i l e d among o t h e r contract, asserted claims things, and that, action action, Brian Homes action"). Brian that, on November their favor Homes Homes insurance by H a r l e y s v i l l e and that f o rBrian i n t h e amount Homes they and asserting, The McDaniels was policy to their covered that by action. a judgment o f $82,000 a f t e r which H a r l e y s v i l l e disclaimed They had been against liability. a had been H a r l e y s v i l l e had provided i n t h e 2002 20, 2008, They breach of warranty, breach of ("the 2002 commercial-general-liability defense i n 2002, a t the time of the events g i v i n g r i s e i n t h e 2002 issued and t h a t , against negligence, fraud Homes"). into a contract with Brian o f a house an against asserted entered Brian a i n Homes, The M c D a n i e l s s t a t e d t h a t n e i t h e r B r i a n Homes n o r H a r l e y s v i l l e h a d s a t i s f i e d the Ala. judgment, and they a s s e r t e d Code 1 9 7 5 , w h i c h any a c l a i m p u r s u a n t t o § 27-23-2, provides: "Upon t h e r e c o v e r y person, firm, or o f a f i n a l judgment corporation by any 2 against person, 2100622 including administrators or executors, f o r loss or damage on a c c o u n t o f b o d i l y i n j u r y , o r d e a t h o r f o r l o s s o r damage t o p r o p e r t y , i f t h e d e f e n d a n t i n s u c h a c t i o n was i n s u r e d a g a i n s t t h e l o s s o r damage a t t h e t i m e when t h e r i g h t o f a c t i o n a r o s e , t h e j u d g m e n t c r e d i t o r s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o have t h e insurance money p r o v i d e d f o r i n the contract of insurance between t h e i n s u r e r and t h e defendant a p p l i e d t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e judgment, and i f t h e judgment i s n o t s a t i s f i e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e when i t is entered, t h e judgment c r e d i t o r may proceed a g a i n s t t h e defendant and t h e i n s u r e r t o reach and a p p l y t h e i n s u r a n c e money t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e judgment." On October 29, 2010, dismiss pursuant motion, Harleysville stated a t o Rule declaratory-judgment against Brian Homes the Northern D i s t r i c t entry of the jury 2002 a c t i o n . action, the claims action 12(b), that, action States i n favor C i v . P. 2008, i thad District that, McDaniels filed action") Court f o r a d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t B r i a n was n o i n s u r a n c e coverage Brian 3 Homes available for Homes i n t h e 2 0 0 2 H a r l e y s v i l l e d i d n o t owe a d u t y i n t h e 2002 a c t i o n . i n the i n the federal-court B r i a n Homes f o r t h e j u d g m e n t t h a t h a d b e e n e n t e r e d the to Ini t s of the McDaniels t h a t h a d b e e n made a g a i n s t and t h a t motion o f Alabama, l e s s t h a n a month b e f o r e t h e verdict there i n late a ("the f e d e r a l - c o u r t Harleysville stated that filed A l a . R. i n the United i thad obtained declaring Harleysville to indemnify i n favor of H a r l e y s v i l l e argued that, 2100622 because t h e r e had been a j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n duty t o indemnify to the B r i a n Homes, a n y l i a b i l i t y i t c o u l d h a v e h a d McDaniels Harleysville had was which that party action differs Wal-Mart i n an e a r l i e r Law Harleysville attached had to filed that complaint, Dictionary of as " ' [ a ] n a f f i r m a t i v e an i s s u e a c t i o n , even 2d determined i f the second 63, 67 256 n.2 Bowers v. (Ala. (7th ed. 2001) 1999)). t o i t s motion a copy o f t h e complaint i t a copy o f t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t ' s on H a r l e y s v i l l e ' s motion a copy o f t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t ' s On N o v e m b e r judgment i n the federal-court included a declaration footnote does McDaniel, default They p o i n t e d not that action, "Of prejudice the 4 judgment, judgment. filed a response t o out that, i n the default read, o r any other f i n d i n g s and for a default 16, 2010, t h e M c D a n i e l s the motion t o d i s m i s s . Shirley defense from t h e f i r s t one.'" So. effect, i n t h e f e d e r a l - c o u r t a c t i o n , a c o p y o f i t s amendment conclusions and In affirmative from r e l i t i g a t i n g I n c . , 827 Black's the i s defined significantly Stores, (quoting extinguished. asserting defense b a r r i n g a party against been estoppel, collateral t h a t i t h a d no the t r i a l course, rights p a r t i e s who judge this of have court's Robert an had and interest 2100622 that w o u l d be a f f e c t e d parties by t h i s to this proceeding. declaration, as t h e y See A l a . Code § 6-6-221 arenot (1975)." Thus, t h e M c D a n i e l s argued, t h e d e c l a r a t o r y judgment i s s u e d b y the federal motion under c o u r t was n o t b i n d i n g was due t o b e d e n i e d . § 27-23-2, on them a n d H a r l e y s v i l l e ' s Harleysville the McDaniels were responded deemed t o s t e p i n t o t h e s h o e s o f B r i a n Homes i n a t t e m p t i n g t o c o l l e c t and that, as a r e s u l t , the federal brought claim against Brian Homes their judgment court's determination that B r i a n Homes h a d n o i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e been that, f o r the claims that had foreclosed the McDaniels' against Harleysville. On December following 20, 2010, the trial court entered the judgment: "This Court i s i n receipt of the Motion t o Dismiss filed on behalf of [Harleysville], requesting that this case be dismissed with p r e j u d i c e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 12 o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . Further, t h i s Court conducted a h e a r i n g on s a i d M o t i o n on December 17, 2 0 1 0 . C o u n s e l f o r H a r l e y s v i l l e was p r e s e n t b u t c o u n s e l f o r [the McDaniels] d i d n o t appear. After due consideration, H a r l e y s v i l l e ' s Motion t o Dismiss i s hereby GRANTED a n d t h i s case i s dismissed with p r e j u d i c e , c o s t s t a x e d as p a i d . " The McDaniels filed judgment, which, a motion to alter, amend, on F e b r u a r y 14, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l 5 or vacate the court denied 2100622 as to Harleysville court but granted a s t o B r i a n Homes. r e i n s t a t e d the McDaniels' d i r e c t e d the McDaniels t o apply B r i a n Homes no l a t e r The trial a c t i o n a s t o B r i a n Homes a n d f o ra d e f a u l t judgment than March against 15, 2011. On M a r c h 1 5 , 2 0 1 1 , t h e M c D a n i e l s a p p l i e d f o r a n e n t r y o f default clerk face against noted B r i a n Homes. the entry of default against of the McDaniels' McDaniels f i l e d On M a r c h 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , t h e c i r c u i t application. a n o t i c e of appeal to this Although of the date Halagan, the t r i a l 23, 2011, t h e court That court t r a n s f e r r e d the the McDaniels filed to enter that, after their appeal, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , an o r d e r McDaniels trial court was " w i t h o u t against against concluded that, jurisdiction Brian Homes. the t r i a l on M a r c h 25, 2 0 1 1 , i n w h i c h a f u r t h e r review Brian as see Johnson v. of the pleadings, i t appeared t h a t a judgment a l r e a d y had been e n t e r e d the naming c o u r t was d i v e s t e d o f j u r i s d i c t i o n 29 S o . 3 d 9 1 5 , 917 stated on t h e c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. court purported it On M a r c h t o o u r supreme o n l y H a r l e y s v i l l e as t h e a p p e l l e e . appeal B r i a n Homes Homes i n t h e 2002 as a r e s u l t of that i n favor of a c t i o n ; the judgment, i t t o a w a r d a n y f u r t h e r sums o f m o n e y " Thus, the t r i a l 6 court purported to 2100622 dismiss present the McDaniels' claim trial entered court an o r d e r court with jurisdiction i fappropriate, enter, either P.,] order i t titled wrote, Homes i n the an 54(b)[, 14, 2011, o r d e r Ala. or On May 1 7 , 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l "order i n pertinent reinvesting f o r a p e r i o d o f 14 d a y s " t o a [Rule] as t o t h e F e b r u a r y a l l pending claims." what Brian action. On May 3, 2 0 1 1 , t h i s the against and f i n a l R. C i v . adjudicate court judgment" entered i n which i t part: " [ I ] t i s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED a n d DECREED that a l l claims against ... Harleysville are d i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e as p r e v i o u s l y ordered, and a l l c l a i m s a g a i n s t [ B r i a n Homes] h a v e b e e n a d d r e s s e d by t h i s C o u r t i n i t s o r d e r d a t e d March 25, 2011. Thus, a l l p e n d i n g c l a i m s have been a d j u d i c a t e d and t h i s j u d g m e n t i s made f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) of t h e Alabama Rules o f C i v i l Procedure." We c o n s t r u e order that order and e n t e r i n g t h e purported o f March 25, 2011, thus d i s p o s i n g o f t h e r e m a i n i n g against On claim B r i a n Homes. appeal, Harleysville's the as a d o p t i n g motion the motion had been parties dispute to dismiss. converted the nature The M c D a n i e l s to one seeking of argue that a summary judgment because H a r l e y s v i l l e a t t a c h e d m a t e r i a l s t o i t s motion that were o u t s i d e the pleadings. 7 Harleysville responds that 2100622 the attachment of pleadings from a p r i o r pending action to a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s d o e s n o t c o n v e r t t h e m o t i o n i n t o one s e e k i n g a summary j u d g m e n t . dismiss As the was, conclude that H a r l e y s v i l l e ' s motion i n s u b s t a n c e , a summary-judgment noted above, assertion estoppel We as of a bar the the to basis the motion. of H a r l e y s v i l l e ' s affirmative defense relitigation of motion of 979 i t s potential So. 2d 784 ( A l a . 2007), our a motion to dismiss that res judicata Determining court to Brian I n L l o y d N o l a n d F o u n d a t i o n , I n c . v. H e a l t h S o u t h C o r p . , whether and was collateral l i a b i l i t y under the p o l i c y of i n s u r a n c e i t had i s s u e d Homes. to that was supreme asserted i n f a c t a motion i t was a motion court considered collateral f o r a summary estoppel judgment. f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , wrote: "The t r i a l c o u r t b a s e d i t s f i n a l o r d e r on t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s o f r e s j u d i c a t a and c o l l a t e r a l estoppel. R u l e 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s t h a t affirmative defenses shall be set forth in a responsive pleading. 'Res j u d i c a t a ' and 'estoppel' a r e two o f t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s l i s t e d i n R u l e 8(c). An a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e i s ' [ a ] d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e r t i o n o f f a c t s and arguments t h a t , i f t r u e , w i l l defeat the p l a i n t i f f ' s or p r o s e c u t i o n ' s claim, even i f a l l the a l l e g a t i o n s i n the complaint are t r u e . ' B l a c k ' s Law Dictionary 451 (8th ed. 2004). The party a s s e r t i n g the a f f i r m a t i v e defense bears the b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g i t . S t e w a r t v . B r i n l e y , 902 So. 2d 1 ( A l a . 2004). 8 the 2100622 " G e n e r a l l y , an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e i s p l e a d e d i n a responsive pleading, such as an answer t o a complaint. The r e a s o n a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s m u s t b e pleaded i n a r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g i s to g i v e the o p p o s i n g p a r t y n o t i c e of t h e d e f e n s e and a chance t o d e v e l o p e v i d e n c e and o f f e r arguments t o c o n t r o v e r t the defense. Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , 402 U.S. 3 1 3 , 3 5 0 , 91 S. C t . 1 4 3 4 , 28 L. E d . 2 d 788 (1971). 'Since the f a c t s necessary to establish an affirmative defense g e n e r a l l y m u s t be shown b y m a t t e r s o u t s i d e t h e complaint, the defense technically cannot be a d j u d i c a t e d on a m o t i o n u n d e r R u l e 1 2 [ , F e d . R. C i v . P.].' 5 C h a r l e s A l a n W r i g h t a n d A r t h u r C. M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e a n d P r o c e d u r e § 1277 ( 3 d e d . 2 0 0 4 ) . However, a p a r t y can o b t a i n a d i s m i s s a l under R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., on t h e b a s i s of an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e when ' " t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e appears clearly on the face of the pleading."' J o n e s v . A l f a M u t . I n s . C o . , 875 S o . 2 d 1 1 8 9 , 1193 (Ala. 2003) ( q u o t i n g B r a g g s v. J i m S k i n n e r F o r d , Inc., 396 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 5 , 1058 (Ala. 1981)). In Jones v. Alfa, supra, the face of the plaintiffs' complaint d i d not indicate that the statutory limitations period applicable to their bad-faith r e f u s a l - t o - p a y - i n s u r a n c e - b e n e f i t s c l a i m had e x p i r e d b e f o r e t h e y s u e d ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e i n s u r e r was not e n t i t l e d to a d i s m i s s a l pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. C i v . P., o n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e o f t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . II "In the p r e s e n t case, the F o u n d a t i o n ' s c o m p l a i n t does not mention the federal litigation. In response to the Foundation's complaint, HealthSouth, in c o m p l i a n c e w i t h R u l e 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. Civ. P., p l e a d e d r e s j u d i c a t a and c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l i n i t s amended a n s w e r . HealthSouth f i l e d a 'motion to d i s m i s s , ' and, i n a s u p p l e m e n t a l b r i e f i n s u p p o r t o f i t s motion to dismiss, i t addressed the doctrines 9 2100622 res j u d i c a t a and c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l . Additionally, HealthSouth a t t a c h e d f i l i n g s from the f e d e r a l court proceeding. Although HealthSouth's motion addressing i t s defenses of res judicata and c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l was a c t u a l l y f r a m e d a s a ' m o t i o n to d i s m i s s , ' t h e m o t i o n s h o u l d have been t r e a t e d as one s e e k i n g a summary j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e t h e f a c e o f the c o m p l a i n t d i d n o t r e f e r e n c e t h e p r i o r l i t i g a t i o n and H e a l t h S o u t h p r o p e r l y p l e a d e d r e s j u d i c a t a and c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l i n i t s answer. The s u b s t a n c e o f a m o t i o n , not what a p a r t y c a l l s i t , d e t e r m i n e s the nature of the motion. E x p a r t e L e w t e r , 726 S o . 2 d 603 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . " 979 So. In 2d a t 791-92 the reference present case, the omitted). the McDaniels' federal-court Harleysville's consider (footnote motion, matters the outside action. trial of the documents attached Harleysville's was, in motion, substance, accordingly, we a will s t a n d a r d b y w h i c h we The judgment standard is well by was motion. a review the judgment r e v i e w a summary this the as w e l l summary as the a result, to dismiss, judgment, pursuant to and, the judgment. court reviews settled: "'"To grant ... a [summaryjudgment] motion, the t r i a l court 10 namely a motion for decide to As motion not required motion although t i t l e d which to pleadings, contained i n Harleysville's that Thus, court assertions to c o m p l a i n t does a summary 2100622 must d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e does not c r e a t e a genuine issue of material fact and t h a t the movant i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. When t h e movant makes a p r i m a facie s h o w i n g t h a t t h o s e two c o n d i t i o n s are s a t i s f i e d , the burden s h i f t s to the nonmovant to present 'substantial evidence' creating a genuine issue o f m a t e r i a l fact. Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 S o . 2 d 7 9 4 , 797-98 (Ala. 1989); § 12-21-12(d)[,] A l a . Code 1975. Evidence i s 'substantial' i fi t i s o f 'such w e i g h t and q u a l i t y that fair-minded persons i n the exercise of i m p a r t i a l judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the f a c t sought to be p r o v e d . ' West v. Founders L i f e A s s u r . Co. o f F l o r i d a , 54 7 So. 2 d 8 7 0 , 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . "'"In our review of a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t , we a p p l y the same s t a n d a r d a s t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Ex p a r t e L u m p k i n , 702 S o . 2 d 4 6 2 , 465 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . Our r e v i e w i s subject to the caveat that we must r e v i e w t h e r e c o r d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and must r e s o l v e a l l r e a s o n a b l e doubts against the movant. Hanners v. B a l f o u r G u t h r i e , I n c . , 564 S o . 2 d 412 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . " ' " P a y t o n v . M o n s a n t o C o . , 801 S o . 2 d 82 9, 8 3 2 - 3 3 ( A l a . 2001) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e A l f a Mut. Gen. I n s . C o . , 742 S o . 2 d 1 8 2 , 184 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ) . " 11 2100622 Maciasz (Ala. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. McDaniels entering argue a that contend judgment they that could n o t be bound i n the federal-court parties to that For effect a prior the t r i a l for Harleysville. entered action. We later erred Specifically, by the d e f a u l t action because they i n they judgment were n o t agree. judgment as t o an i s s u e on a p a r t y ' s court relitigation t o have a p r e c l u s i v e of that issue, i t must s h o w n t h a t t h e p e r s o n a g a i n s t whom t h e p r e c l u s i v e e f f e c t i s sought, to 994-95 2008). The be C o . , 988 S o . 2 d 991 , or a person the prior Dairyland i nprivity litigation with i n which that person, the issue was a party was d e c i d e d . See I n s . Co. v . J a c k s o n , 566 So. 2 d 723, 726 ( A l a . 1990) ( l i s t i n g theelements o f c o l l a t e r a l estoppel). In the present c a s e , n e i t h e r t h e M c D a n i e l s n o r s o m e o n e w i t h whom t h e y w e r e i n privity were p a r t i e s t o t h e f e d e r a l - c o u r t default declaratory judgment e n t e r e d j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d . i n that they are free t o l i t i g a t e that action 12 As a r e s u l t , t h e i s not binding the issue judgment. action i nwhich the on them, a n d o f coverage determined by 2100622 In so concluding, jurisdictions circumstances in this 537 that have join reached See, e.g., H a r r i s that injured party 149 issued 364, (concluding required party insured); 248 that P.3d 912, t o those court not of i n presented 507 F . 2 d 5 3 3 , d i d not e r r i n bound by default was n o t i n e f f e c t a t t i m e o f action v. Nevada brought by Gen. I n s . Co., 916-17 (N.M. C t . App. judgment insured n o t made a p a r t y number conclusion v. Quinones, Gallegos declaratory t o indemnify was same i n declaratory-judgment against N.M. the was judgment d e c l a r i n g t h a t insurance insurer substantial C i r . 1974) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t r i a l concluding accident a t h a t a r e t h e same o r s i m i l a r case. (10th we that insurer was n o t t o which injured i n proceeding could the insurer's not preclude litigating Ins. Co. v. P a u l e k a s , App. 1994) ("Independent a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o v e r a g e q u e s t i o n h a s 633 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 3 p r e v i o u s l y been decided res judicata to Independent party from of liability); injured 2010) i n i t s favor, support this Fire (Fla. Dist. Ct. relying position. on t h e d o c t r i n e We disagree, f i n d i n g t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a does n o t a p p l y under the by an facts of this insurer against case. A declaratory i t s insured action obtained i s not binding 13 on a t h i r d - p a r t y 2100622 claimant who was not action."); Glandon P.2d 118-19 116, favor of insurer v. a party Searle, (1966) not separate parties insurer's Churchman v. I n g r a m , 56 (holding action void). that between 1 Because we 2d 199, judgment 202-03, that 412 judgment default declaring insured who had declaratory-judgment So. 2d injured party insurer that declaratory in insurer was p o l i c y d i d not b i n d i n j u r e d p a r t i e s against to the Wash. insured l i a b l e under insurance in 68 (holding against action to and 297, was not insured conclude 300-01 that been made action); and ( L a . C t . App. bound by that not 1951) declaration insurance in policy was H a r l e y s v i l l e ' s motion was S e e a l s o 17 L e e R. R u s s a n d Thomas F. S e g a l l a , C o u c h on I n s u r a n c e § 2 3 9 . 6 8 ( 3 d e d . 2 0 0 5 ) ("When an i n s u r e r a n d i n s u r e d oppose each other i n a p r o c e e d i n g f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment c o n c e r n i n g the v a l i d i t y of, or coverage under, a p o l i c y of l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e , t h e r e i s n o t a l w a y s t h e i n c e n t i v e on t h e part of the insured to vigorously contest the insurer's claims. A c c o r d i n g l y , when t h e i n s u r e r a t t e m p t s t o a s s e r t t h e j u d g m e n t i n t h a t p r o c e e d i n g as p r e c l u s i v e o f a l a t e r a c t i o n by t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y , o r b y an i n s u r e r o f t h a t p a r t y , t h e r e i s considerable authority that the earlier judgment i s not binding [ o ] n s u c h new p l a i n t i f f s who were not p a r t y t o the e a r l i e r d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t a c t i o n . " ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) ) ; 20 J o h n A l a n A p p l e m a n , I n s u r a n c e Law a n d P r a c t i c e § 1 1 3 7 1 (1980) ( " P e r s o n s who h a v e b e e n i n j u r e d i n an a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t are c e r t a i n l y p r o p e r p a r t i e s t o a s u i t by t h e l i a b i l i t y i n s u r e r t o d e t e r m i n e the c o v e r a g e o f i t s p o l i c y , and t h e b e t t e r r u l e w o u l d seem t o be t h a t t h e y a r e b o t h p r o p e r and necessary p a r t i e s to the maintenance of the s u i t . H e n c e , i t w o u l d be e r r o r to d i s m i s s such persons from the d e c l a r a t o r y judgment 1 14 2100622 without merit reversed, reversal we and t h a t t h e t r i a l pretermit discussion the McDaniels Harleysville court's a s s e r t on argues on j u d g m e n t i s due t o be of the other appeal. appeal that the t r i a l j u d g m e n t c a n b e a f f i r m e d b e c a u s e i t was e n t e r e d the McDaniels' disagree. We discretion R. failure to recognize to dismiss that under circumstances default, that o r some party. 487-88 prosecute has f a i l e d evidencing other See R i d d l e s p r i g g e r ( A l a . 1987). 2 However, v. action. a trial We court's t o Rule 41(b), A l a . t o prosecute i t s action purposeful contumacious court's as a r e s u l t o f their i t i s within an a c t i o n p u r s u a n t C i v . P., w h e n a p a r t y grounds f o r conduct Ervin, delay, willful on t h e p a r t 519 i n the present So. of 2d 486, case, the suit. I n f a c t , o n e c a s e was r e v e r s e d u p o n a p p e a l w h e r e i t refused the right to interested parties to attack a default judgment. However, i f t h e c o u r t does n o t o r c a n n o t secure j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r them, t h e i r r i g h t s c a n n o t be d e s t r o y e d b y t h e i r n o n a p p e a r a n c e ; n o r c a n s u c h r i g h t s be d e t e r m i n e d where t h e y a r e n o t made p a r t i e s t o t h e s u i t . " ( f o o t n o t e d o m i t t e d ) ) . 2 Rule 41(b) reads: "For f a i l u r e o f t h e p l a i n t i f f t o prosecute or to comply w i t h these r u l e s o r any order o f c o u r t , a d e f e n d a n t may move f o r d i s m i s s a l o f a n a c t i o n o r o f any c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t . U n l e s s t h e c o u r t i n its order f o r d i s m i s s a l otherwise specifies, a d i s m i s s a l under t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n and any d i s m i s s a l 15 2100622 language of dismissing the the dismissal trial court's McDaniels' was based on H a r l e y s v i l l e ' s motion. for of the the trial order action a consideration of order appear f o r the "due prosecuting their of b e c a u s e of a l a c k of d i l i g e n c e by court for d i d not failure aside conclude t h a t the to prosecute i t s D e c e m b e r 20, i s the 2010, on order the motion pending the McDaniels due t o be fact that the trial despite the dismissed court set a lack possible f a i l u r e to prosecute t h e i r action. Indeed, the t i m e i n t h i s e n t i r e a c t i o n t h a t an b e e n r a i s e d as a possible is failure to prosecute in Harleysville's appellate contained i n the record of the on the brief; part no proceedings of such the of any first to McDaniels suggestion below. not provided for in this rule, other than a d i s m i s s a l f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n , for improper v e n u e , o r f o r f a i l u r e t o j o i n a p a r t y u n d e r R u l e 19, o p e r a t e s as an a d j u d i c a t i o n u p o n t h e m e r i t s . " 16 in trial argument i n the M c D a n i e l s ' postjudgment motion r e l a t i v e to i s s u e has of as a r e s u l t indicating that in part, of counsel the a c t i o n was order order merits entered consideration" Further the the hearing motion, not action. 2010, notes that r e f l e c t s t h a t i t was court's 20, indicates that Although the the McDaniels d i d not to dismiss, December is 2100622 Moreover, action the on had the hearing the basis trial dismissed the their counsel had failed motion to dismiss, a c t i o n would have c o n s t i t u t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . filed McDaniels' Harleysville's on that court to The attend such McDaniels a response to H a r l e y s v i l l e ' s motion to dismiss, a result, the t r i a l c o u r t was fully a p p r i s e d of the p o s i t i o n with respect to that motion. does not contain any purposeful delay, conduct on the failure to attend did extend, not the trial willful part the of See to Gill or, the or The any in the Cobern, 36 record of contumacious their counsel's court's trial discretion so action So. as McDaniels' suggestion other circumstances, dismiss v. indeed, McDaniels hearing. and, Furthermore, the default, under these court prosecute. evidence an 3d f a r as to allow for failure to 31, 32-34 (Ala. trial court 2009). B a s e d on erred to to the foregoing, we conclude t h a t the r e v e r s a l when i t d i s m i s s e d Harleysville. 3 As a result, the the McDaniels' trial court's action judgment i s T h e M c D a n i e l s do n o t r a i s e a s an i s s u e on a p p e a l , t h u s we do n o t a d d r e s s , whether the t r i a l court erred d i s m i s s i n g B r i a n Homes f r o m t h e a c t i o n . 3 17 as and in 2100622 due t o be r e v e r s e d for additional to the t r i a l proceedings. R E V E R S E D AND Pittman, and t h e cause remanded REMANDED. Bryan, Thomas, a n d M o o r e , 18 J J . , concur. court

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.