William Eric Moya v. Enoch Canterbury and Ruth Canterbury

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/12/2013 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 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110525 W i l l i a m E r i c Moya v. Enoch Canterbury and Ruth Canterbury Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-10-904572) PITTMAN, Judge. William Jefferson affirm. Court Eric Moya appeals Circuit Court denying from a judgment him a t r i a l of the by j u r y . We 2110525 On December 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 , E n o c h C a n t e r b u r y a n d h i s w i f e , R u t h Canterbury, accident filed they a complaint arising a s s e r t e d had been o u t o f an caused automobile by Moya; i n t h e i r c o m p l a i n t , t h e y a s s e r t e d c l a i m s o f n e g l i g e n c e and wantonness a g a i n s t Moya a n d a c l a i m f o r u n i n s u r e d / u n d e r i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t benefits against Nationwide M u t u a l F i r e I n s u r a n c e Company ( " N a t i o n w i d e " ) . complaint d i d not Nationwide f i l e d an a n s w e r , a s s e r t i n g a number o f d e f e n s e s a n d demanding a generally denying trial their automobile-insurance contain by a jury. the demand Moya allegations a s s e r t i n g a number o f d e f e n s e s . for a later of jury filed the provider, an The trial. answer, complaint and Moya f a i l e d t o demand a t r i a l by j u r y i n h i s a n s w e r . Nationwide limine. filed a motion In t h a t motion, t o o p t o u t and a motion Nationwide in o p t e d o u t o f any f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s , a g r e e i n g t o be b o u n d b y t h e v e r d i c t t o t h e e x t e n t of any u n d e r i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t - b e n e f i t l i m i t s liability in i t s contract with and the Canterburys beyond t o Moya. Nationwide further liability coverages available requested the t r i a l court to p r o h i b i t i n t r o d u c i n g evidence o f coverage the Canterburys from or otherwise d i s c l o s i n g t o the jurors or 2 2110525 prospective jurors the existence Nationwide's insurance coverage. court granted Nationwide's The case was of, or the amount of, On A p r i l 14, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l motion. set f o r a jury trial. On May h o w e v e r , t h e C a n t e r b u r y s f i l e d an o b j e c t i o n t o t h e 3, 2011, jury-trial s e t t i n g and a m o t i o n f o r a n o n j u r y - t r i a l s e t t i n g , a r g u i n g t h a t Moya h a d f a i l e d t o demand a j u r y t r i a l a g a i n s t him. Moya f i l e d a r e s p o n s e t o t h a t m o t i o n , that Nationwide's demand f o r a j u r y m a i n t a i n t h e c a s e on t h e j u r y - t r i a l filed on t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a r e p l y t o Moya's trial docket. asserting was s u f f i c i e n t t o The C a n t e r b u r y s response. On June 13, 2 0 1 1 , a h e a r i n g was h e l d on t h e C a n t e r b u r y s ' motion, and t h e t r i a l e n t e r e d t h a t same d a y . 5, 2 0 1 1 . the A nonjury t r i a l On J u l y 7, 2 0 1 1 , Moya f i l e d order things, c o u r t granted t h a t motion setting that Nationwide. reconsider, he a nonjury had trial, relied The C a n t e r b u r y s on was s e t f o r December a motion asserting, the responded jury 3 to reconsider among demand other made by t o Moya's m o t i o n to a n d , on A u g u s t 12, 2011, t h e t r i a l Moya's m o t i o n . i n an o r d e r court denied 2110525 On January 24, 2012, t h e t r i a l court entered j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e C a n t e r b u r y s on t h e i r Moya and d i s m i s s e d t h e i r a final claims against claims against Nationwide. f i l e d h i s notice of appeal t o t h i s Moya c o u r t on M a r c h 1, 2012. Moya r a i s e s o n l y one i s s u e on a p p e a l : w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n denying him a j u r y t r i a l . Civ. P., explains accordance that with that rule consent of the p a r t i e s . rely on N a t i o n w i d e ' s a demand may R u l e 3 8 ( d ) , A l a . R. f o r a jury trial made i n n o t be w i t h d r a w n w i t h o u t t h e Moya a s s e r t s t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o demand for a trial by j u r y and that, b e c a u s e he h a d n o t c o n s e n t e d t o t h e w i t h d r a w a l o f t h a t demand, he was e n t i t l e d t o a j u r y The Cir. trial. C a n t e r b u r y s c i t e R o s e n v. D i c k , 639 F.2d 82, 92 (2d 1980), f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n that, " [ i ] f the f i r s t [jury] demand does n o t c o v e r i s s u e s p e r t i n e n t t o a s e c o n d p a r t y , t h e s e c o n d p a r t y c a n n o t r e l y r e a s o n a b l y on t h e f i r s t a l s o I n r e N-500L C a s e s , demand." 691 F.2d 15 ( 1 s t C i r . 1 9 8 2 ) . See Thus, the C a n t e r b u r y s argue t h a t , because t h e c l a i m a s s e r t e d by t h e Canterburys against Nationwide claim than those Moya could not was a separate a s s e r t e d by t h e C a n t e r b u r y s rely on Nationwide's 4 jury and distinct a g a i n s t Moya, demand. Moya 2110525 a s s e r t s , however, t h a t t h e cases c i t e d by t h e Canterburys are n o t c o n t r o l l i n g a n d t h a t t h e A l a b a m a c a s e s o f H e s t e r v. P o s e y , 684 So. 2d 1347 Federal Savings 763 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996); S t a i k v. J e f f e r s o n & Loan A s s o c i a t i o n o f B i r m i n g h a m , 434 So. 2d ( A l a . 1983); a n d Ex p a r t e West, 797 So. 2d 1070 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , demand a d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t In S t a i k v. J e f f e r s o n F e d e r a l S a v i n g s case. & Loan A s s o c i a t i o n o f B i r m i n g h a m , 434 So. 2d a t 764, a c l a i m a n t o f f u n d s t h a t h a d been paid into interpleader filed court by a banking a c t i o n was d e n i e d a trial institution by j u r y in an when he h a d an a n s w e r a n d c o u n t e r c l a i m t h a t d i d n o t i n c l u d e a j u r y demand. The o t h e r c l a i m a n t , who h a d b e e n made a d e f e n d a n t t o t h e same c l a i m s as t h e c l a i m a n t , s u b s e q u e n t l y i n c l u d i n g a demand f o r a j u r y t r i a l . claimant filed I d . a t 764. an amended c o u n t e r c l a i m demand; h o w e v e r , t h e p l a i n t i f f filed f i l e d an a n s w e r , Later, the that included a jury a motion t o s t r i k e that j u r y demand a n d , i n a d d i t i o n , t h e o t h e r c l a i m a n t w i t h d r e w h i s demand f o r a j u r y t r i a l . I d . a t 764-65. determined that the t r i a l court d i d not e r r i n s t r i k i n g the claimant's jury demand or allowing w i t h d r a w h i s j u r y demand w i t h o u t 5 The supreme the other the claimant's court claimant consent, to see 2110525 Rule had 38, A l a . R. C i v . P., b e c a u s e , a t t h e t i m e filed claimant his original answer h a d n o t y e t made a the claimant and c o u n t e r c l a i m , jury demand the other and, t h u s , c l a i m a n t c o u l d n o t have r e l i e d on t h e o t h e r c l a i m a n t ' s for a jury. Ex p a r t e West, s u p r a , the importance case, Nationwide's answer. West does not support like upon was made s u b s e q u e n t could not support filed of the fact i n an a t t e m p t t o that, i n the present j u r y demand was made b e f o r e Moya f i l e d h i s because i n t h a t case, had demand I d . a t 765. Moya a l s o c i t e s emphasize the a later argument, however, i n S t a i k , t h e j u r y demand to the o r i g i n a l relied answer a n d , t h u s , j u r y demand b y t h e d e f e n d a n t t h e o r i g i n a l answer. c o r r e c t that Nationwide's Moya's that 797 So. 2d a t 1072. Moya i s j u r y demand p r e c e d e d t h e f i l i n g o f Moya's c o u n t e r c l a i m a n d t h a t , t h u s , b a s e d upon t h e t i m i n g o f the p a r t i e s ' p l e a d i n g s , Moya c o u l d have r e l i e d on t h a t jury demand i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e 38. In H e s t e r v. P o s e y , 684 So. 2d a t 1348-49, h o w e v e r , a l s o r e l i e d upon b y Moya, t h i s court s t a t e d : "We f i n d t h e f o l l o w i n g p e r t i n e n t s t a t e m e n t s i n 9 C h a r l e s A. W r i g h t & A r t h u r R. M i l l e r , Federal P r a c t i c e a n d P r o c e d u r e § 2318 ( 1 9 7 1 ) : 6 2110525 " ' I f a t i m e l y and p r o p e r demand f o r a j u r y i s made b y one p a r t y , a l l of the p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n who a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n the i s s u e s f o r w h i c h j u r y t r i a l has been demanded may r e l y on t h a t demand and n e e d n o t make an a d d i t i o n a l demand o f t h e i r own " ' " ' I f a p r o p e r demand f o r a j u r y h a s b e e n made, i t c a n n o t be w i t h d r a w n w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t o f a l l t h e p a r t i e s . The demand by one p a r t y i s e n o u g h t o make t h e c a s e a jury action "'A p a r t y who i s i n d e f a u l t h a s n o t s t a n d i n g t o demand a j u r y t r i a l . However i f a j u r y t r i a l h a s once b e e n properly demanded d e f e n d a n t , d e s p i t e h i s s u b s e q u e n t d e f a u l t , may s t i l l i n s i s t on a j u r y t r i a l on t h e i s s u e o f damages.' "As n o t e d a b o v e , W a l - M a r t , Mangrum, a n d B u c h a n a n demanded a j u r y t r i a l when e a c h f i l e d a n s w e r s t o t h e c o m p l a i n t . We f i n d t h a t a l t h o u g h H e s t e r d i d n o t demand a j u r y t r i a l , he c o u l d r e l y upon t h e demands f o r a j u r y t r i a l made b y h i s c o - d e f e n d a n t s f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : t h o s e demands f o r a j u r y t r i a l were made p r i o r t o t h e t i m e H e s t e r f i l e d h i s a n s w e r , t h e demands f o r a j u r y t r i a l were n e v e r w i t h d r a w n , and H e s t e r n e v e r c o n s e n t e d t o any a l l e g e d w i t h d r a w a l o f t h e demands f o r a j u r y t r i a l . See S t a i k v. J e f f e r s o n F e d . Sav. & Loan A s s ' n , 434 So. 2d 763 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . As o u r supreme c o u r t s t a t e d i n S t a i k , 434 So. 2d a t 765, ' [ a p a r t y ] c a n r e l y on t h e demand made ... and know t h a t he c a n n o t be ambushed b y t h e withdrawal of that jury demand without h i s consent.'" (Emphasis added.) 7 2110525 It i s clear from the language cited and adopted H e s t e r , i n c l u d i n g t h e l a n g u a g e we have e m p h a s i z e d above, t h a t t h e r u l e Alabama. even because the Nationwide liability against were claims court that, i n Rosen were against from the Moya and same facts interested by Nationwide's "'all i n the demanded may r e l y ' " 1349 (emphasis that he jury the claims and issues had any that Nationwide's demand. f o r which As because Moya claim complaint stated in t o t h e a c t i o n who a r e jury trial has been 684 So. 2d I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , Moya does n o t interest i n the claims liability was outcome against h a d no interest of the Nationwide, dependent r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e C a n t e r b u r y s ' c l a i m s a g a i n s t him. Hester, against Nationwide's on t h e p r e v i o u s j u r y demand. added.) here, of the negligence of the p a r t i e s uninsured/underinsured-motorist only applicable Moya, a l l t h e c l a i m s i n t h e C a n t e r b u r y s ' covered argue i n h i s reply brief to this depends on t h e r e s o l u t i o n H e s t e r , however, at applies i n as s t a t e d arise i n t h e quote a s s e r t e d by t h e C a n t e r b u r y s Moya a r g u e s i f the rule in on Based i n the issue the on raised a g a i n s t N a t i o n w i d e , Moya was n o t a b l e t o r e l y on N a t i o n w i d e ' s 8 2110525 jury demand, declining and, thus, the t r i a l t o a f f o r d Moya a j u r y court d i d not e r r i n trial. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. 9

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.