Jerry Alexander and Bryan Courtney v. Geico Insurance Companies

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/14/2010 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 1081755 Jerry Alexander and B r y a n Courtney v. Geico Appeal PER CURIAM. from Insurance Companies Jefferson Circuit (CV-08-901223) Court 1081755 Jerry Alexander appeal the t r i a l for want and c o u r t ' s sua of p r o s e c u t i o n . Facts On Bryan April Companies 17, 2008, ("Geico") sponte We and Courtney dismissal plaintiffs") of t h e i r Procedural History plaintiffs the Jefferson uninsured-motorist benefits. The sued Geico Circuit injured i n an automobile i n September 2007. injuries the coverage The Insurance Court seeking complaint alleges that h a d i s s u e d A l e x a n d e r an a u t o m o b i l e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y uninsured-motorist action affirm. the in ("the and that the Geico containing plaintiffs were a c c i d e n t w i t h an u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t c o m p l a i n t does not s p e c i f y the type plaintiffs suffered, only that "as a result of of the automobile a c c i d e n t complained of h e r e i n , [ t h e ] p l a i n t i f f s sustained collect Geico injuries damages f r o m policy answered the complaint. of for which c o m p l a i n t by interrogatories and are legally entitled to an u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t as p r o v i d e d i n t h e insurance." That they same On or about May 7, d e n y i n g each allegation day also requests Geico for production plaintiffs. 2 2008, Geico within the served written on of each the 1081755 On August 19, designating this 2008, the t r i a l court entered 2008, the t r i a l May 10, 2008, interrogatories Geico respond also to production moved the s e t the case Geico served a within fortrial second on e a c h of the p l a i n t i f f s . the t r i a l c o u r t t o compel written interrogatories and i t h a d s e r v e d on h i m i n May 2 0 0 8 . 2008, t h e t r i a l on court granted the motion January 7, production 2009, asserted, discovery 29, 2009, moved That the t r i a l court to for On D e c e m b e r 1 5 , t o compel and o r d e r e d to the 14 d a y s . On requests f o r 2008. date o f May i n the case the t r i a l same requests 23, 2009, t h e p l a i n t i f f s and G e i c o f i l e d a to continue the t r i a l On A p r i l responded s e r v e d on h i m i n May On A p r i l motion Courtney set of Courtney Courtney to respond to the i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s w i t h i n then stating d i s c o v e r y was t o b e c o m p l e t e d The s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r a l s o December written they September 11, 2009. On day, On court entered a scheduling order that a l lpending w r i t t e n 60 d a y s . order a c t i o n as a " S t a n d a r d T r a c k c a s e " and s e t t i n g a s c h e d u l i n g c o n f e r e n c e f o r September 25, 2008. 29, an 11, 2009, had not been joint because, completed. court denied the motion. Geico to reconsider i t sdenial of the 3 1081755 motion to continue. reconsider, the trial The trial court denied but the court then vacated that date On J u n e f o r June 8, 2 0 0 9 , denial Geico two motions compel--one list. That related served on Courtney previously the trial ordering three related in to the o b t a i n e d an o r d e r court entered the p l a i n t i f f s days. The order second 2008, and to compel. an o r d e r t o answer further On granting June both that had i t had 15, 2009, motions the interrogatories states set of Geico f o r which 1 filed on D e c e m b e r 1 0 , to the interrogatories May counsel same d a y G e i c o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s G e i c o s e r v e d on e a c h p l a i n t i f f and a n o t h e r and r e s e t provided the p l a i n t i f f s ' i t s w i t n e s s and e x h i b i t 2008, to 22, 2009. with to the motion and within "[f]ailure to The r e c o r d i s n o t c l e a r as t o w h e t h e r , i n J a n u a r y 2009, Courtney had responded to some or a l l the written i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s s e r v e d o n h i m i n May 2 0 0 8 . Geico, i n i t s brief to this Court, asserts that "Courtney responded to G e i c o ' s r e q u e s t s f o r p r o d u c t i o n on J a n u a r y 7, 2 0 0 9 , a n d G e i c o ' s i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s on J a n u a r y 9, 2 0 0 9 " Geico's b r i e f , a t p . 2. H o w e v e r , o n t h e n e x t p a g e o f i t s b r i e f , G e i c o a s s e r t s t h a t " [ t ] h e s e c o n d m o t i o n [ t o c o m p e l ] was d i r e c t e d t o P l a i n t i f f C o u r t n e y a n d h i s f a i l u r e t o r e s p o n d t o G e i c o ' s May 7, 2 0 0 8 , i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . " Geico's b r i e f , a t p . 3. The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s a document e n t i t l e d " P l a i n t i f f ' s Responses t o D e f e n d a n t ' s R e q u e s t f o r P r o d u c t i o n , " f i l e d on J a n u a r y 7, 2 0 0 9 , but t h e r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n C o u r t n e y ' s answers t o w r i t t e n interrogatories. 1 4 1081755 comply with this Order will result in your case being dismissed." On June responses court 1 6, the to 2009 interrogatories, to continue the June 22, 2009. the plaintiffs trial date provided and from they Geico with the trial moved i t s current setting As g r o u n d s f o r t h e c o n t i n u a n c e , t h e of plaintiffs asserted: "The p l a i n t i f f , J e r r y A l e x a n d e r , i s c u r r e n t l y being t r e a t e d f o r back problems r e l a t e d to this a c c i d e n t and has been i n f o r m e d t h a t b a c k s u r g e r y i s needed. "The Plaintiff, F l o r i d a and i s u n a b l e Geico responded to the motion that i t "vehemently In opposition to oppose[d] a d e p o s i t i o n on A p r i l follow up doctor S e p t e m b e r 14, n o t h i n g he not grant plaintiffs' 27, by Geico stated that since that the date of the the d o c t o r t o l d in relation to f u r t h e r motion counsel to "had continue failed 5 to comply during a one accident on "'there was treatment because, action." to only him Geico a l s o a s s e r t e d that the t r i a l the asserting any c o n t i n u a n c e o f t h i s 2009, " A l e x a n d e r t e s t i f i e d visit c o u l d do' for a continuance continuance, 2007," and back i n j u r y . " Bryan Courtney, resides in t o a t t e n d t r i a l n e x t week." for his court should i t with said, any of the this 1081755 Court's or Pre-Trial Damages List Orders and [Geico's] request responses having has not f i l e d a Witness, continually to trial continuance court on J u n e entered The o r d e r for court denied 18 , an o r d e r evidence, respond and to " The f o r documents, failed Exhibit, the p l a i n t i f f s ' 200 9. On June motion 2 3 , 200 9, dismissing the action discovery for a the trial with prejudice. states: "The a b o v e - s t y l e d c a s e came o n b e f o r e t r i a l on J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 . the Court "The P l a i n t i f f [ s ] failed t o comply w i t h the S c h e d u l i n g Order d a t e d September 29, 2008, and t h e Court's order compelling responses to outstanding discovery dated June 15, 2009. Further, the P l a i n t i f f [ s ] f a i l e d to adequately prepare f o r t r i a l . for Although court dismissed with prejudice C o s t s t a x e d as p a i d . " t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no i n d i c a t i o n ordered occurred, a "This case i s hereby failure to prosecute. mediation the t r i a l mediator, because of this case o f when t h e o r when the c o u r t had a p p a r e n t l y r e f e r r e d the next day, June trial mediation the case t o 24, 2009, the trial c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r s t a t i n g t h a t t h e p a r t i e s must s p l i t t h e $750 f e e o f t h e m e d i a t o r . 6 1081755 On Aside July 2, 2009, Dismissal paragraph one of and the plaintiffs Reinstate that motion filed Case." a In "Motion relevant to Set part, states: "The P l a i n t i f f s w e r e p r e p a r e d f o r t r i a l on t h e date s e t by t h i s C o u r t . A l l subpoenas had been issued. The P l a i n t i f f s w e r e p r e s e n t a n d p r e p a r e d t o testify. The e x p e r t w i t n e s s , D r . F r e d P a t t o n , was on c a l l a n d p r e p a r e d t o t e s t i f y on b e h a l f o f the plaintiffs. The w i t n e s s O f f i c e r P a t M a l o n e o f t h e Fultondale Police Department was on call and p r e p a r e d t o t e s t i f y as w e l l . " The trial and, on denying court held a hearing August the 3, motion. 2009, the The on order t h e m o t i o n on trial court J u l y 27, entered an states: " A f t e r h e a r i n g the o r a l arguments of counsel and r e v i e w i n g t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h e C o u r t f i n d s as f o l l o w s : " 1 . T h i s t r i a l was d i s m i s s e d because the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the S c h e d u l i n g O r d e r d a t e d S e p t e m b e r 29, 2008, and t h e C o u r t ' s O r d e r c o m p e l l i n g r e s p o n s e s to outstanding discovery requests dated J u n e 15, 2 0 0 9 . " 2 . On t h e d a t e o f t r i a l , t h e P l a i n t i f f [ s ] r e p r e s e n t e d to the Court t h a t [they were] not p r e p a r e d t o move f o r w a r d w i t h t r i a l . T h e r e f o r e , b a s e d on t h e i n a c c u r a c y o f t h e assertions in Paragraph One of the P l a i n t i f f s ' M o t i o n to Set A s i d e , the M o t i o n i s h e r e b y DENIED." The plaintiffs now appeal the d i s m i s s a l of 7 the case. 2009, order 1081755 Discussion The Ala. d i s m i s s a l of c i v i l R. C i v . P. action may prosecute court." be Rule 41(b), dismissed Court has i s governed by R u l e A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s "[f]or or to comply w i t h This actions these failure t h a t an of the p l a i n t i f f r u l e s o r any o r d e r 41, to of [the] advised: " ' R u l e 4 1 ( b ) h a s b e e n c o n s t r u e d t o mean t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t has t h e i n h e r e n t power t o d i s m i s s a cause f o r want o f p r o s e c u t i o n o r f o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h court rules or orders. Ryder I n t ' l Corp. v. S t a t e , 439 S o . 2 d 162 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) . A c c o r d , Link v . W a b a s h R.R., 370 U.S. 6 2 6 , 82 S. C t . 1 3 8 6 , 8 L. E d . 2 d 734 ( 1 9 6 2 ) . Such a d i s m i s s a l i s g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d t o be w i t h i n t h e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d w i l l b e r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l o n l y f o r an a b u s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . Whitehead v. Baranco C o l o r L a b s , I n c . , 355 S o . 2 d 376 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1978). I t n e e d o n l y be d e t e r m i n e d , upon a p p e l l a t e review of a t r i a l c o u r t ' s a c t i o n under Rule 41(b), whether the r u l i n g i s supported by t h e e v i d e n c e . S t r i c k l a n d v . N a t i o n a l G y p s u m C o . , 348 S o . 2 d 497 (Ala. C i v . App. 1 9 7 7 ) ; N e t t l e s v. F i r s t N a t ' l Bank, 388 S o . 2 d 916 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . ' " Gill v. Cobern, (Ala. 486, 487 2009) [Ms. 1 0 7 0 4 5 0 , (quoting (Ala. 1987)). whether the t r i a l the plaintiffs' has advised that court action O c t . 23, 2009] So. 3d R i d d l e s p r i g g e r v. E r v i n , Accordingly, f o r want "[b]ecause of prosecution. the t r i a l 8 519 S o . 2 d the issue i n t h i s exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n judge , case i s i n dismissing This i s i n the Court best 1081755 p o s i t i o n to assess the conduct of the p l a i n t i f f of noncompliance, for failure his decision to prosecute w i l l and t h e to grant a motion be degree to dismiss accorded considerable by a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t . " Jones v. M e r r i l l & Smith, 2d 332, 341 ( A l a . 1991). argue that the trial weight I n c . , 604 The So. plaintiffs discretion in dismissing this action Lynch, P i e r c e , court because, Fenner exceeded i t s they say, "the delays i n responding to the d i s c o v e r y requests per the Court's scheduling lengthy o r d e r do delay to plaintiffs' rely Education, 365 So. the Appeals f o r the F i f t h of prejudice delay 2 d a t 661 366, rule 2d 368 "actions "although an 15. To Smith upon v. 659 Circuit or contumacious (quoting made that 'only Wilcox the County i n which United "a t r i a l i n the face The this States the of Court Court j u d g e may a The Board of dismiss of a c l e a r E a s t C o a s t Ry., plaintiffs or argument, c o n d u c t by t h e p l a i n t i f f . ' " (5th C i r . 1967)). not by conduct prejudice." support this Durham v. F l o r i d a ... i n no way with ( A l a . 1978), articulated action contumacious dismissal a t p. applied with constitute justify brief, plaintiffs not record 365 385 contend that So. F.2d their r e f l e c t contumacious conduct," because, timely, [their 9 discovery responses] were 1081755 filed with barring the court constituting dismissal." The present plaintiffs' diligence brief, at p. and 17. S i g n i f i c a n t l y , the p l a i n t i f f s completely disregard the portion of the dismissal the t r i a l plaintiffs' The court's failure plaintiffs "[o]n the date Court that trial." order to refute that of t r i a l , Further, were] to not prepared a statement S o . 2 d 3 0 4 , 306 predicate Indeed, error a silent on State, t o move to the forward t h e June in lieu A l a . R. A p p . P. ( A l a . 2007) matters appellant's duty to f i l e v. represented with 22, 2009, and t h e p l a i n t i f f s of proceedings record finding that on t h e m o t i o n f o r r e i n s t a t e m e n t case i s i n c l u d e d i n the record, file on t h e on J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 . court's a t r a n s c r i p t of neither pursuant to Rule 10(d), 974 trial the P l a i n t i f f [ s ] proceedings nor the hearing this bases t o be p r e p a r e d f o r t r i a l fail [they that not supports ("'A 2 See Ex p a r t e by 444 S o . 2 d 8 8 4 , 885 (Ala. Howell, court cannot the record. a judgment. a correct record.'" failed of a t r a n s c r i p t reviewing shown of ... (quoting ... I t i s the Robinson 1983))). R u l e 1 0 ( d ) , A l a . R. A p p . P., p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " I f no r e p o r t o f t h e e v i d e n c e o r p r o c e e d i n g s a t a h e a r i n g o r trial was made, o r i f a t r a n s c r i p t i s u n a v a i l a b l e , t h e appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best a v a i l a b l e means, i n c l u d i n g t h e appellant's recollection." 2 10 1081755 In that response the court this action "counsel court, on prepared 11. the day t o move v. Cameron, action forward with not defendants ( A l a . 1987), of t h i s to the brief, contends that proceed court's not a t p. Scullin i s dispositive. case, the t r i a l and Under court i n dismissed on to 518 trial, although So. 2d a t 697. judgment of 2d a t 699-700. 11 the the This dismissal, "[W]hen p l a i n t i f f refused to proceed, the trial c o u r t h a d no a l t e r n a t i v e b u t t o d i s m i s s t h e c a s e . Under those c i r c u m s t a n c e s - - t h e c o n t i n u a n c e having been properly denied, the defendant and his w i t n e s s e s b e i n g p r e s e n t and r e a d y f o r t r i a l , and t h e p l a i n t i f f w i l l f u l l y r e f u s i n g to proceed--this Court c a n n o t h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was i n e r r o r f o r entering a dismissal." So. the counsel represented that holding: 518 in trial were of p r o s e c u t i o n a f t e r , for trial. trial parties Geico's f o r a continuance were p r e p a r e d affirmed i t s discretion said Geico date, the p l a i n t i f f ' s prepared argues represented to the trial." position, a motion Geico of p r o s e c u t i o n because, i t that w i t h p r e j u d i c e f o r want was Court trial, to the facts scheduled t r i a l he of arguments, exceed [plaintiffs] of t h i s denied not f o r want 518 S o . 2 d 695 similar Scullin did f o r the In support facts the p l a i n t i f f s ' trial dismissing says, to 1081755 The again plaintiffs failing were not point Court when calendar in and M o n e y , 403 that discovery not trial have alleged and [the] trial on of the of the litigation on 2d 218, 220 deadlines to the the us, i m p o s e d by proceed trial to date the to 403 demonstrate in dismissing "ex So. issue parte Mediator at and trial inherent its From to meet they were court had power of the trial court exceeded i t s a c t i o n f o r want of prosecution. the appeal, the warrants 12 an the of and plaintiffs communication between ... plaintiffs 220, that this on 2d v. d i s m i s s a l f o r want i s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n and Selby, Selby failed after "A interest been r e a c h e d . court, time. the its exceeded trial trial one court plaintiffs the comes controlling Here, the had they there merits." trial the thereby 2009. action in the that point 22, outweigh (Ala. 1981). that before June court defendant brief, finding that " [ i ] n every the a separate an that interest appears failed As to reply court's to court," discretion held i n f i n d i n g that prosecution trial a risk prepared continued has demonstrated discretion all the file the So. not to to proceed the disposing have refute prepared This a to failed [the plaintiffs argue trial unfair prejudice that court] against 1081755 [the plaintiffs], Mediator The Ethics and plaintiffs' presented violates took parte trial judge alleged unsupported search the v. "This the matter Friedman, plaintiffs that an court ex and parte the communication recuse have 971 herself, we not of c o u r t or that trial need not ex parte and the presented any the alleged ex t h e y moved the a c t i o n because Court does for not not of have the substantiation appellant's the of brief a j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d . " So. or error." court have record 2d 23, 31 ( A l a . 2007). to s u b s t a n t i a t e communication to the trial the and have an a p p e a r i n g i n an failed mediator plaintiffs that from t h i s order to determine whether Friedman The reversible complained to the t r i a l factual in they communication. to 7. between to recuse h e r s e l f obligation constitutes plaintiffs that communication Cannon of E t h i c s indicating the indicating Judicial p. place Likewise, evidence at evidence communication mediator. therefore brief, any the that judge occurred they complained this allegations between o r moved t h e address 13 their the of trial claim. Because trial such judge a to 1081755 Conclusion Based is on the foregoing, the judgment of the trial court affirmed. AFFIRMED. Cobb, C.J., and Woodall, Smith, concur. 14 Parker, and Shaw, J J . ,

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.