Ex parte American Heritage Life Insurance Company. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Vernon Day v. American Heritage Life Insurance Company et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 03/26/2010 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 , 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 ( ( 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080868 Ex p a r t e A m e r i c a n H e r i t a g e L i f e PETITION FOR (In WRIT OF r e : Vernon Insurance Company MANDAMUS Day v. American H e r i t a g e L i f e (Bullock C i r c u i t PARKER, Court, Company e t a l . ) CV-03-149) Justice. American petitions Insurance this Heritage Court Life for a Insurance writ of Company mandamus ("AHLIC") directing the 1080868 Bullock Circuit Court to vacate i t s March denying AHLIC's motion to sever the claim the against David Garth, plaintiff, sever the Vernon claims. or Bullock about grant We a the June and 19, the attack, effect the b o n e s and with insured, Day had AHLIC. The Day's and the injured petition issue writ. and Procedural an inmate at the allegedly attacked facility. policy the Day suffered plan" covered insurance Day's the for time policy in family, $20,000 Day, fractures broken t e e t h . At included to Posture Garth, "accident coverage attacked i t from and h i s n o s e and an against order officer, County C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y , to h i s f a c i a l 2009, correctional 2007, a c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r at the of i n m a t e who Day, Background On an claims 13, and, as accidental d e a t h or dismemberment, $2,000 f o r a d i s l o c a t i o n or fracture, $100 ambulance per benefit, as day for h o s p i t a l confinement, depend on b e n e f i t . These amounts are the injuries attack, Day filed on 26, 2007, AHLIC p a i d July f o r an $250 maximum f o r m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s a n d a disability that $100 a claim suffered. for benefits Day $300. $600 p e r subject As under a to result the month factors of policy, the and 1 The $2,000 b e n e f i t p a i d i n t h e e v e n t o f a d i s l o c a t i o n o r f r a c t u r e was s u b j e c t t o a f a c t o r o f 1 5 % i f t h e f r a c t u r e was to 1 2 1080868 On the June 26, 2008, benefit fictitiously he Day, d i s s a t i s f i e d received, sued named d e f e n d a n t s , AHLIC, t h e amount o f Garth, and various t h a t A H L I C was guilty r e f u s a l t o pay a j u s t claim, b a d - f a i t h r e f u s a l t o i n v e s t i g a t e a c l a i m , and n e g l i g e n t and/or of b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t , wanton h i r i n g , I, claiming with bad-faith training, and/or s u p e r v i s i o n . These were Counts I I , I I I , a n d V, r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n h i s c o m p l a i n t . the complaint asserted based on a s s a u l t On A u g u s t claim against that there a r e no i s s u e s AHLIC G a r t h f o r damages filed a motion Rules against to sever the i t . I t argued o f l a w o r f a c t common t o t h e c l a i m s i t and t h e c l a i m a g a i n s t under against Garth from t h e claims s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t , joinder claim and b a t t e r y . 15, 2008, tort against a tort Count I V o f Garth. Because the claims a r e AHLIC argued, t h e y were n o t s u b j e c t t o 2 0 , A l a . R. C i v . P., 2 and i t sought a the bones o f t h e f a c e o r n o s e , so t h a t h e r e AHLIC m u l t i p l i e d $ 2 , 0 0 0 b y 0.15 t o y i e l d a p a y m e n t o f $ 3 0 0 . 2 Rule 2 0 , A l a R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s , i n part: " ( a ) P e r m i s s i v e J o i n d e r . ... A l l p e r s o n s may b e joined i n one a c t i o n as d e f e n d a n t s i f there i s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them j o i n t l y , s e v e r a l l y , o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , any r i g h t t o r e l i e f i n r e s p e c t o f o r a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n , o c c u r r e n c e , o r s e r i e s o f t r a n s a c t i o n s o r o c c u r r e n c e s and i f any question o f l a w o r f a c t common t o a l l d e f e n d a n t s 3 1080868 severance quoted 2d u n d e r R u l e 2 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P. from 2 9 7 , 299 3 In i t s motion, Ex p a r t e N o v a r t i s P h a r m a c e u t i c a l s Corp., ( A l a .2007), to support AHLIC 975 S o . i t sargument: "'In order to j o i n defendants pursuant to Rule 2 0 ( a ) , b o t h r e q u i r e m e n t s i m p o s e d by t h e r u l e must be m e t : (1) t h e p l a i n t i f f must a s s e r t a g a i n s t each defendant a "right to relief i n respect of or a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n , o c c u r r e n c e , o r series of transactions o r o c c u r r e n c e s , " a n d (2) t h e r e w i l l a r i s e i n t h e a c t i o n "any q u e s t i o n o f law o r f a c t common t o a l l d e f e n d a n t s . " A m i s j o i n d e r occurs i f e i t h e r of the Rule 20(a) requirements i s n o t s a t i s f i e d . R u l e 21 ... p r o v i d e s f o r s e v e r a n c e o f c l a i m s i f j o i n d e r o f t h e c l a i m s was i m p r o p e r u n d e r Rule 20.'" (Second emphasis added i n p e t i t i o n . ) AHLIC f u r t h e r argued will arise t h a t i t c o u l d n o t be h e l d j o i n t l y o r i n the action. ... " ( b ) S e p a r a t e T r i a l s . T h e c o u r t may make s u c h orders as will prevent a party from being embarrassed, delayed, o r p u t t o expense by t h e i n c l u s i o n o f a p a r t y a g a i n s t whom t h e p a r t y a s s e r t s no c l a i m a n d who a s s e r t s no c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e p a r t y , a n d may o r d e r s e p a r a t e t r i a l s o r make o t h e r o r d e r s to prevent delay or p r e j u d i c e . " Rule provides: 3 21, "Misjoinder and Nonmisjoinder of Parties," "Misjoinder of parties i s not ground f o r d i s m i s s a l o f a n a c t i o n . P a r t i e s may b e d r o p p e d o r a d d e d b y o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t on m o t i o n o f a n y p a r t y o r o f i t s own i n i t i a t i v e a t a n y s t a g e o f t h e a c t i o n a n d on s u c h t e r m s a s a r e j u s t . A n y c l a i m a g a i n s t a p a r t y may b e s e v e r e d a n d p r o c e e d e d w i t h s e p a r a t e l y . " 4 1080868 severally liable f o r Garth's attack argument, AHLIC presented battery 2d claim, 542, 544 which Life i t quoted ( A l a . 1995). breach-of-contract Insurance Co. the elements do the elements the elements Security Fire of a of I t also quoted v. Barstow, 799 So. bad-faith 931 , v. as Bowen, 417 So. in 2d of (Ala. overlap National 179 (Ala. argument, AHLIC's states: "Elements of an Assault and Battery (Defendant G a r t h ) . In Alabama, the elements a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y c l a i m a r e as f o l l o w s : Claim o f an "'[A]n i n t e n t i o n a l , u n l a w f u l o f f e r to touch the p e r s o n of another i n [ a ] rude or angry manner under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s as to c r e a t e i n the mind of the p a r t y alleging the assault a wellfounded fear of an imminent b a t t e r y , coupled w i t h the apparent present a b i l i t y to e f f e c t u a t e the attempt if not p r e v e n t e d . A successful assault becomes a b a t t e r y , w h i c h c o n s i s t s of the t o u c h i n g of a n o t h e r i n a h o s t i l e manner.' " W r i g h t v. W r i g h t , 654 "Elements a of So. 2d 542, Breach of 5 544 a overlap, claim defined So. Congress 937 o f t h e c l a i m s do n o t claim, 654 elements Court i n 2d the assault-and- of the a s s a u l t - a n d - b a t t e r y & C a s u a l t y Co. to sever an the c l a i m as d e f i n e d b y t h i s 1 9 8 2 ) , f r o m w h i c h i t a l s o q u o t e d . As t o t h i s motion In support of f r o m W r i g h t v. W r i g h t , 2 0 0 1 ) , t o show t h a t t h e e l e m e n t s nor on Day. ( A l a . 1995). Contract Claim 1080868 (Defendant [AHLIC]). To establish a breach c o n t r a c t c l a i m , a p l a i n t i f f must p r o v e : '(1) e x i s t e n c e of a v a l i d c o n t r a c t b i n d i n g the p a r t i e s the a c t i o n , (2) [ h i s ] own performance under contract, (3) t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s n o n p e r f o r m a n c e , (4) d a m a g e s . ' C o n g r e s s L i f e I n s . Co. v . B a r s t o w , So. 2 d 9 3 1 , 937 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . "Elements of a Bad Faith Claim [AHLIC]). In a 'normal' case of bad p l a i n t i f f has t h e b u r d e n of p r o v i n g : of the in the and 799 (Defendant faith, a " ( a ) An insurance contract between parties and a breach thereof by defendant; the the " ( b ) An intentional insured's claim; the refusal "(c) The absence of legitimate or a r g u a b l e refusal (the absence reason); to pay any reasonably reason for that of a debatable " ( d ) The i n s u r e r ' s a c t u a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e absence of any legitimate or arguable reason; [and] "(e) If the intentional failure to determine the e x i s t e n c e of a l a w f u l b a s i s i s r e l i e d upon, t h e p l a i n t i f f must p r o v e the insurer's intentional failure to determine whether t h e r e i s a l e g i t i m a t e or a r g u a b l e r e a s o n t o r e f u s e t o pay the c l a i m . "See N a t i o n a l S e c . F i r e 2 d 179 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . " AHLIC fact that argued in t h e r e i s no & Cas. i t s motion overlap to Co. sever between 6 v . B o w e n , 417 that, the claims So. besides the against the 1080868 two defendants, there was defendants acted i n concert legal Day's effect on then quoted the holding analogous (Miss. case, Hegwood cause no allegation the two a n d i t s a l l e g e d m i s c o n d u c t h a d no of action against of the M i s s i s s i p p i v. that Williamson, Garth. AHLIC Supreme C o u r t i n an 949 So. 2d 728, 731 2007): "'We f i n d that the c i r c u i t court should have severed the claims. The third party tort claim against Williamson and t h e f i r s t p a r t y b r e a c h o f contract and bad f a i t h claims involve distinct l i t i g a b l e e v e n t s . The c l a i m s a g a i n s t W i l l i a m s o n a n d State Farm a r i s e o u t o f s e p a r a t e a l l e g a t i o n s of wrongdoing o c c u r r i n g at separate times. While i ti s true that the genesis of both claims arose out of the accident, t h e two claims involve different f a c t u a l i s s u e s a n d d i f f e r e n t l e g a l i s s u e s . The c a r accident r a i s e s f a c t i s s u e s o f how the accident occurred and l e g a l issues of simple negligence (duty, breach of duty, proximate causation, and damages). The b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t and bad faith c l a i m s r a i s e f a c t i s s u e s o f what o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n t h e t w o i n s u r a n c e a d j u s t e r s a n d how t h e y made t h e i r decisions and l e g a l issues of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of insurance policies a n d b a d f a i t h u n d e r w h i c h an award of p u n i t i v e damages may o r may not be a p p r o p r i a t e . The n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m w o u l d b e p r o v e n b y d i f f e r e n t witnesses ( t h e two d r i v e r s , e y e w i t n e s s e s to the accident, law enforcement, and accident re-enactment experts) from t h a t of the bad faith c l a i m ( i n s u r a n c e agents and management).'" AHLIC argued i n i t s m o t i o n t o s e v e r for which the claim attack on Day, the that although f o r b e n e f i t s was claims involve 7 filed arose "different the i n j u r i e s from Garth's elements of 1080868 proof, d i f f e r e n t defenses, should be relieved confusion, defend of and the not to mention d i f f e r e n t witnesses. potential unnecessary [Day's] b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t context of a wholly unrelated prejudice expense, and bad f a i t h violent [AHLIC] and jury of having to claims i n the and battery assault claim." On N o v e m b e r sever, saying plaintiffs in 3, 2 0 0 8 , Day that s u e d 73 s e p a r a t e 'unrelated' acts but, instead part o f t h e same injured h i s case that [Day]. As such, two defendants of t r a n s a c t i o n s the joinder to argue that there " i s no a b s o l u t e constitutes 'a left that of of i s determined fact injuries, common to t h e amount whose were or occurrences that i s proper." Furthermore, ( A l a . 1987), rule f o r determining transactions of on a c a s e b y c a s e b a s i s judge." cases, as of the medical 8 are bills, the what occurrences.' Day w e r e c a u s e d b y an a c c i d e n t both ... actions 515 S o . 2 d 7 0 4 , 706 to the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l whether h i s i n j u r i e s i n which the 'coincidentally similar,' Rudolph, Generally, to d e f e n d a n t s t h a t had " p a r t i c i p a t e d Day q u o t e d E x p a r t e series t o AHLIC's motion i s unlike Novartis, were [Day] j o i n e d series responded and i s argued that is a question extent of h i s and whether those 1080868 bills that for r e s u l t from Garth's Garth v. s e t i n motion a s e r i e s of events the action event and t h a t 2001), & Cope, that liability, several i s the basis are merely by Rule another 20. C i t i n g Brooks Rule but also 20 d o e s n o t r e q u i r e allows joinder on Ala. a basis f o r the basis of i t s motion to liability. On November 5, 2008, that there sever, arguing common to the claims Garth. According whether the claims injuries was against dislocation no their commonality, define which, settled against the issue he says, when AHLIC p o l i c y . The e x t e n t o f Day's o f f a c t b e c a u s e , AHLIC AHLIC's liability o f t h e bones o f t h e face explanation. was or law claim a l l e g a t i o n that or a f r a c t u r e , adjusted without of fact o n h i m was a n a c c i d e n t , under the accident limits question i t and t h e t o r t On M a r c h 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e t r i a l sever supplemented Day's i s n o t a common i s s u e policy fracture AHLIC t o AHLIC, the assault made p a y m e n t to actions that I n c . , 176 F. S u p p . 2 d 1 2 7 1 , 1 2 7 6 (M.D. Day a r g u e d joint the AHLIC's i n t h e s e r i e s , as e n v i s i o n e d Paulk gives a c t i o n s . Day a r g u e d i n h i s r e s p o n s e t o 15% o f t h a t fora amount f o r o r t h e nose. court This 9 a t $2,000 argued, denied petition AHLIC's follows. motion 1080868 In trial i t sp e t i t i o n , court exceeded motion to sever against Garth. a right same the that to r e l i e f from both or failure, AHLIC i t from defendants and because, granted, i tw i l l be f o r c e d claims claim will hear to a v i o l e n t assault against Garth against AHLIC. AHLIC c l a i m s evidence and t h a t without that a pain unrelated i tw i l l and other relief is suffering o f Day's claim to h i s claims be p r e j u d i c e d of Review "'"Mandamus i s a drastic and e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y where there i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; 10 legal in a trial in severance. Standard a Because of i t h a s no the claims of existed mandamus i s the basis i s otherwise that that he out of the i t has a c l e a r unless to defend there defendants. that i t says, related case proceeds AHLIC's Day's t o r t arising that s o u g h t . AHLIC c l a i m s remedy jury i t denied Day d i d n o t c a r r y h i s b u r d e n occurrence adequate the as w h e t h e r t h e A l a . R. C i v . P., t o d e m o n s t r a t e b o t h t h a t to the r e l i e f which against o f l a w o r f a c t common t o b o t h alleged right the issue i t s d i s c r e t i o n when AHLIC argues transaction question states Day's c l a i m s under Rule 20(a), had AHLIC i f the 1080868 (3) and the the l a c k of another a d e q u a t e remedy; (4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n of court."' "Ex p a r t e P e r f e c t i o n S i d i n g , I n c . , 882 S o . 2 d 3 0 7 , 309-10 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e I n t e g o n Corp., 672 S o . 2 d 4 9 7 , 499 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ) . 'A p e t i t i o n f o r a writ o f mandamus i s the appropriate means f o r c h a l l e n g i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o s e v e r c l a i m s . ' E x p a r t e A l f a L i f e I n s . C o r p . , 923 S o . 2d 2 7 2 , 273 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) . " Ex of parte Novartis mandamus showing of e r r o r Harrington Finance will Pharms. Corp., not on granted the part M f g . Co., America be Corp., 414 975 S o . 2 d a t 2 9 9 . " [ A ] w r i t So. unless there of the t r i a l 2d 74 is a clear judge. Ex parte ( A l a . 1982)." Ex parte 507 S o . 2 d 4 5 8 , 460 ( A l a . 1987). Analysis Rule 2 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s , i n pertinent part: "All persons may be joined i n one action as d e f e n d a n t s i f t h e r e i s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them j o i n t l y , s e v e r a l l y , o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , any r i g h t t o r e l i e f i n r e s p e c t o f o r a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n , occurrence, or s e r i e s of t r a n s a c t i o n s or occurrences a n d i f a n y q u e s t i o n o f l a w o r f a c t common t o a l l defendants w i l l arise i n the a c t i o n . " This Court r e c e n t l y addressed a similar issue, saying: " R u l e 2 0 ( a ) a u t h o r i z e s j o i n d e r o f a l l p e r s o n s ' i n one a c t i o n as d e f e n d a n t s i f t h e r e i s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t t h e m ... a n y r i g h t t o r e l i e f i n r e s p e c t o f o r a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n , o c c u r r e n c e , o r s e r i e s o f t r a n s a c t i o n s or occurrences and i f any q u e s t i o n o f l a w o r f a c t common t o a l l d e f e n d a n t s w i l l a r i s e i n 11 1080868 the action.' (Emphasis added.) Proper joinder r e q u i r e s s a t i s f a c t i o n of both prongs of Rule 20(a). E x p a r t e N o v a r t i s P h a r m s . C o r p . , 975 S o . 2 d 297 ( A l a . 2007). "'This Court has p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d t h a t "there i s no a b s o l u t e r u l e f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s 'a s e r i e s o f t r a n s a c t i o n s o r o c c u r r e n c e s ' u n d e r R u l e 20. G e n e r a l l y , t h a t i s d e t e r m i n e d on a c a s e b y c a s e b a s i s and i s l e f t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l judge."' N o v a r t i s , 975 S o . 2 d a t 300 ( q u o t i n g E x parte Rudolph, 515 S o . 2 d 7 0 4 , 70 6 ( A l a . 1987 ) (emphasis added)). S e e a l s o 7 C h a r l e s A. Wright, A r t h u r R. M i l l e r , & M a r y K. K a n e , 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 § 1 6 5 2 , a t 396 ( 3 d e d . 2 0 0 1 ) . " White Sands 1057-58 Group, one v . PRS against two c a s e s AHLIC i n support arise S o . 2 d 232 his claims trial ( A l a . 1987), against of petition both occurrences. f o r a writ court to injury. vacate We In cites i n support Garth Garth a common and AHLIC Jenkins, i t s joinder question Ex p a r t e arise this of from Court have 12 from of law Jenkins, that t h e same denied a d i r e c t e d the medical-malpractice who h a d t r e a t e d t h e p l a i n t i f f said: arise of h i s position o f mandamus t h a t w o u l d claims against doctors workplace and t h a t against i n t h e a c t i o n . Day f i r s t 510 series of h i s p o s i t i o n that the and t h e c l a i m s e r i e s of occurrences will I I , L L C , 998 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 2 , ( A l a . 2008). Day p r e s e n t s claims L.L.C. after h i s 1080868 "The c l a i m s a s s e r t e d b y G a s t o n a r o s e o u t o f t h e same s e r i e s o f o c c u r r e n c e s t h a t began w i t h h i s i n j u r y a t his place o f employment and c o n t i n u e d with h i s resulting h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n and t r e a t m e n t f o r that o r i g i n a l i n j u r y . The a c t i o n f i l e d b y G a s t o n p r e s e n t s factual questions common t o a l l d e f e n d a n t s with r e g a r d t o damages a n d p r o x i m a t e c a u s e . Thus, u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 2 0 ( a ) , [ A l a . ] R. C i v . P., t h e p l a i n t i f f s may j o i n t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n o n e a c t i o n . " 510 S o . 2 d a t 234 In his Jenkins, workplace exacerbated treated by contract no effect joinder Day 442 those from t h i s Day's joinder of injuries injuries i n were the medical injuries. case, physical allegedly personnel Jenkins i s clearly i n t h a t AHLIC's a l l e g e d failure injuries, who breach t o pay or t o i n v e s t i g a t e had the basis for permissible i n Jenkins. next c i t e s o f damages proper Guthrie jointly common v. B i o - M e d i c a l Day's a to a l l defendants brief, laboratory treated the p l a i n t i f f Laboratories,Inc., i n support of h i s p o s i t i o n that the even i f t h e c l a i m s liability." sued those actions or bad-faith on suffered and S o . 2 d 92 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , "issue of the for distinguishable added). the p l a i n t i f f accident, him of (emphasis during a t 8. involved [will different theories In Guthrie, and group make] t h e the p l a i n t i f f of physicians who h a d her pregnancy, a l l e g i n g that 13 they 1080868 had failed her child trial to prevent that court joinder a n Rh resulted severed the of the defendants i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y between i n brain actions, damage but to this h e r and the c h i l d . The Court the held proper: "In t h e case a t b a r , t h e p l a i n t i f f s were c l e a r l y e n t i t l e d t o j o i n t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n o n e a c t i o n . (1) The complaint alleged that each defendant was negligent and t h a t as a p r o x i m a t e r e s u l t Andrea s u f f e r e d b r a i n d a m a g e . (2) The c l a i m s a l l a r o s e o u t o f t h e same s e r i e s o f o c c u r r e n c e s , t o - w i t , A n d r e a ' s conception, g e s t a t i o n , and b i r t h . (3) T h e r e was b u t a s i n g l e , i n d i v i s i b l e i n j u r y t o A n d r e a , w h i c h was a l l e g e d l y c a u s e d b y t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f one o r more o f the defendants. T h e r e f o r e , there i s a f a c t u a l i s s u e common t o a l l d e f e n d a n t s , t h e i s s u e o f d a m a g e s . " [ A l a . R. C i v . P.] 20 was i n t e n d e d t o a b o l i s h the technical objections to joinder previously existing, i n order to prevent a multiplicity of actions and a l l o w a l l parties interested in a controversy t o p r o c e e d i n one a c t i o n . See C o m m i t t e e Comments t o R u l e 2 0 . F o r c i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f s t o p u r s u e two a c t i o n s f o r A n d r e a ' s i n j u r i e s w o u l d c r e a t e a r i s k of i n c u r r i n g i n c o n s i s t e n t judgments. R e q u i r i n g a l l the parties to proceed i n a single action will promote c o n s i s t e n c y o f r e s u l t s as w e l l as j u d i c i a l economy. "Although f a c t u a l l y accurate, the defendants' argument t h a t B i o - M e d i c a l ' s a l l e g e d m i s t y p i n g h a d no e f f e c t on t h e c a r e a n d t r e a t m e n t p r o v i d e d b y D o c t o r s B i r d s o n g , Ray, and O'Rear i s u n p e r s u a s i v e . N o t h i n g i n the r u l e s o f c i v i l p r o c e d u r e r e q u i r e s t h e a l l e g e d l y negligent acts of a l l the defendants t o be s o intertwined. I t i s not e s s e n t i a l to a l l e g e that the defendants j o i n t l y committed a s i n g l e t o r t i n order for t h e p l a i n t i f f ( s ) t o p r o p e r l y j o i n them i n one action. I t i s s u f f i c i e n t to allege that successive 14 1080868 torts concurred i n producing t h e same indivisible i n j u r y . B r o w n v . M u r d y , 78 S.D. 3 6 7 , 102 N.W. 2 d 6 6 4 , 667 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ; Shawd v . D o n o h o e , 97 O h i o A p p . 2 5 2 , 125 N.E. 2 d 3 6 8 , 369 (1954)." 442 So. 2d proper, the defendants in at claim (emphasis facts must producing Here, 96 underlying demonstrate there and AHLIC assert Garth against i s Garth's Garth the those of the occurrence assault constituting and AHLIC. between the 4 The i n contract, The g e n e s i s claims against insurance o f Day's AHLIC policy the claims while against the AHLIC the claim on is Day, Day's from AHLIC. actionable were claims while c o n s t i t u t i n g the claim against battery, be concurred t o r t i o u s a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y the to disparate that commonality sounding purchase of the accident-plan actionable against torts against sounds i n t o r t . genesis for joinder injury." i f any, claims claim against while "successive is little, Garth Thus, claims t h e same i n d i v i s i b l e against against added). The Garth i s occurrences i t s alleged bad- Some o f t h e c l a i m s Day a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t A H L I C i n h i s c o m p l a i n t w e r e b a s e d on i t s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o p a y h o s p i t a l b e n e f i t s f o r h i s son, a c l a i m u n r e l a t e d t o t h e a s s a u l t by G a r t h . He " c o n c e d e [ d ] t h a t h i s c l a i m s a g a i n s t [ A H L I C ] b a s e d u p o n f a i l u r e t o p a y f o r h o s p i t a l b e n e f i t s f o r h i s s o n on t h e same p o l i c y do n o t r e l a t e t o c l a i m s a g a i n s t [ G a r t h ] . " D a y ' s b r i e f , a t 5 n . 1 . A H L I C m a k e s no a r g u m e n t t o t h i s C o u r t a b o u t Day's c l a i m s r e l a t i v e t o h i s s o n . 4 15 1080868 faith refusal violation child to of the terms i n Guthrie, the negligence and battery contract who and to pay of the insurance suffered brain a t t h e hands of Garth Day's in Unlike contract. claim the damage a s t h e r e s u l t o f of m u l t i p l e defendants, Day s u f f e r e d an and an alleged assault breach of a t t h e hands o f AHLIC. The h o l d i n g s be investigate proper were defendant i n Jenkins based on and G u t h r i e the contribution t o " t h e same i n d i v i s i b l e We h o l d , therefore, because Day defendants that suffered found j o i n d e r to of more than one i n j u r y . " 442 S o . 2 d a t 9 6 . the joinder no that i n this indivisible c a s e was injury to improper which both and t h e claim contributed. Conclusion Because asserted set the claims against forth i n Rule erred i n denying AHLIC has s o u g h t , we to vacate to enter Garth against n o t meet A l a . R. AHLIC's motion a clear AHLIC the c r i t e r i a C i v . P., to sever legal for joinder the trial the claims. right t h e w r i t and d i r e c t t h e B u l l o c k i t s order an o r d e r do 20(a), demonstrated issue asserted to court Because the Circuit relief Court denying the motion to sever the claims severing the claims 16 and t h e p a r t i e s and pursuant 1080868 to Rule 2 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P. PETITION Stuart, Cobb, GRANTED; WRIT Smith, Bolin, C . J . , and Lyons, ISSUED. and Murdock, Woodall, 17 J J . , concur. a n d Shaw, J J . , d i s s e n t .

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.