Patton v. Hampton Insurance Agency
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
In separate petitions, the Hampton Insurance Agency and Ginger Spencer, Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company and Ashland General Agency all defendants in an action filed by Mary Alice Patton, d/b/a Hole in the Wall Lounge, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to transfer the action to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. Ms. Patton purchased insurance for her lounge from Ms. Spencer, an independent insurance agent for Hampton. At issue was the nature and extent of the coverage Ms. Patton sought. The lounge was destroyed by fire in 2009. Upon filing her insurance claim, Ms. Patton was informed that her policy did not include coverage for property damage. Accordingly, Ms. Patton sued because "defendants were negligent and/or wanton in their procurement of full coverage insurance for [Patton] on her lounge building and its contents." Hampton responded with a motion to dismiss or in the alternative, to transfer the case on grounds that the case was filed in an improper venue. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the defendant insurance companies met the requirements for the writ of mandamus. The Court directed the trial court to vacate its order denying defendants' motions to transfer, and to enter orders granting those motions to transfer to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court.
Download PDF
REL:11/18/2011 N o t i c e : This 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 before 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 Courts, 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, 2011-2012 1101211 Ex p a r t e Hampton I n s u r a n c e Agency and G i n g e r A. Spencer 1101226 Ex p a r t e A c c e p t a n c e Indemnity Insurance Company and A s h l a n d G e n e r a l Agency, I n c . PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Mary A l i c e P a t t o n d/b/a H o l e i n t h e W a l l Lounge v. Hampton I n s u r a n c e Agency e t a l . ) (Hale C i r c u i t C o u r t , SHAW, CV-09-900045) Justice. In separate ("Hampton") and Ginger Acceptance Ashland petitions, Indemnity A. Hampton Spencer Insurance G e n e r a l Agency, Mary A l i c e (case Company I n c . ("Ashland") t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n an a c t i o n f i l e d P a t t o n d/b/a Hole Insurance no. Agency 1101211) and ("Acceptance") and (case no. 1101226), i n t h e Hale C i r c u i t Court by i n t h e W a l l Lounge a l l e g i n g they f a i l e d t o procure insurance coverage, p e t i t i o n t h i s for writs o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g the t r i a l court that Court to transfer the u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n t o t h eT u s c a l o o s a C i r c u i t C o u r t . Because o f t h e i d e n t i c a l n a t u r e o f t h e mandamus r e l i e f s o u g h t , we h a v e consolidated f o r the purpose We g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n s opinion. t h e two p e t i t i o n s and i s s u e Facts In November independent Tuscaloosa County as the writs. and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y 2008, insurance o f i s s u i n g one Patton purchased agent who Hampton, lounge l o c a t e d i n Hale County. 1 was from doing insurance Spencer, an business i n coverage for her At theheart of the underlying A c c o r d i n g t o Spencer, she "shops" a c l i e n t ' s r e q u e s t e d c o v e r a g e f r o m s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t c a r r i e r s f r o m whom s h e c a n o b t a i n c o v e r a g e q u o t e s b u t w i t h whom s h e h a s no c o n t r a c t u a l relationship. 1 2 1101211, 1101226 dispute is sought. the nature Patton's through Ashland, general agent and May l o u n g e was a that her 2009, alleging that a motion Civ. P., ground coverage obtained agency Hampton serves as a liquor-liability fire. Patton operated Upon f i l i n g policy did not include on A u g u s t named of f u l l and to dismiss County P a t t o n sued B, and C," 3 to Rule an 2 and/or wanton i n Hampton on responded 12(b)(3), to t r a n s f e r constituted A, for insurance for [Patton] i t s contents." pursuant informed coverage 18, 2009, "Defendants coverage the an i n s u r a n c e c l a i m the "Defendants were n e g l i g e n t Hale Patton by that only i n which or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , that was included building As a r e s u l t , building with the coverage. fictitiously procurement lounge of t h e damage t o t h e l o u n g e , P a t t o n was p r o p e r t y damage. their the insurance and which surplus-lines d e s t r o y e d by Hampton extent f o r Acceptance, associated with her policy, general-liability In and Ala. the case on improper venue. R. the More Patton's complaint i d e n t i f i e d the f i c t i t i o u s l y named defendants as "those persons, firms, partnerships, c o r p o r a t i o n s , a n d / o r e n t i t i e s d o i n g b u s i n e s s as o r on b e h a l f o f o r who a s s i s t e d , a n d f a i l e d t o p r o c u r e ... f u l l coverage insurance." 2 The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t the Hole i n the W a l l Lounge l o c a t e d i n a m o d i f i e d m o b i l e home. 3 3 was 1101211, 1101226 specifically, Hampton's m o t i o n proprietorship County. whose only alleged office In support of i t s motion, affidavit reflecting operated County, by t h a t Hampton i s a i s located sole i n Tuscaloosa Hampton a t t a c h e d Spencer's t h a t H a m p t o n i s an u n i n c o r p o r a t e d e n t i t y Spencer as where Spencer a sole proprietorship i n Tuscaloosa resides. P a t t o n s u b s e q u e n t l y amended h e r c o m p l a i n t t o add numerous a d d i t i o n a l c o u n t s a n d t o name S p e n c e r , A s h l a n d , a n d A c c e p t a n c e as d e f e n d a n t s . seeking a Spencer, transfer of the case Acceptance, Acceptance, filed T h e r e a f t e r , Hampton r e n e w e d i t s i n i t i a l joined. County, Hampton, which Spencer, a n d A s h l a n d a l s o s u b s e q u e n t l y -- a n d r e p e a t e d l y -¬ supplemental disclosed and A s h l a n d to Tuscaloosa motion materials, including both information d u r i n g d i s c o v e r y and r e c e n t l y r e l e a s e d d e c i s i o n s o f t h i s Court, i n support of the requested t r a n s f e r , which Patton continued to oppose. 4 S p e c i f i c a l l y , as n o t e d i n Hampton and S p e n c e r ' s p e t i t i o n , a l t h o u g h t h e i n i t i a l m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r was b a s e d on § 6-3-6, A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , o n c e " t h i s C o u r t , i n E x p a r t e H u g h e s , [51 S o . 3d 1016 ( A l a . 2010),] clarified that the proper venue p r o v i s i o n a p p l i c a b l e t o a s o l e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p i s A l a . Code § 6-3-2[,] Hampton and S p e n c e r s u p p l e m e n t e d t h e i r Motions to T r a n s f e r b a s e d on t h i s c l a r i f i c a t i o n i n t h e l a w . " H a m p t o n a n d S p e n c e r ' s p e t i t i o n , a t p . 10 n . 1 9 . 4 4 1101211, On 1101226 June entered an 2011, order conclusion Patton 15, denying that venue originally Specifically, Code and 5 Greenetrack, Perfection parte 1995), 6 trial court's the this Inc., Loan in trial Siding, Swift the 25 Inc., & controlled. order hearing, County her court So. 882 So. Co., further denying was proper the that decisions 449 2d 667 trial (Ala. 307 of requested § on its the time 6-3-6, Ex 2009), 2d court Hampton. in (Ala. So. support at against concluded 3d the t r a n s f e r based action Court's Finance In a requested Hale filed the 1 975 , following parte Ex 2003), 706, Ala. parte and 707 (Ala. i t s decision, transfer Ex the included following: "Hampton Insurance Agency and/or Ginger A. Spencer conducted business i n Hale County i n that t h e y s o l d a t l e a s t f i v e (5) p o l i c i e s o f i n s u r a n c e i n Hale County, t h e y i n s p e c t e d the p r o p e r t i e s t h a t were insured, advertised i n a phone book of general p u b l i c a t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n i n H a l e C o u n t y and the policy in question i n t h i s c a s e was delivered via United States P o s t a l Service r e g u l a r mail i n Hale C o u n t y . The a c t u a l p o l i c y at i s s u e i n t h i s matter Section 6-3-6 provides that an "[a]ction against an u n i n c o r p o r a t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n o r a s s o c i a t i o n may be c o m m e n c e d i n any county where such organization or association does b u s i n e s s o r has i n e x i s t e n c e a b r a n c h or l o c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . " 5 The three determinations corporations. 6 cases c i t e d in actions by t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n c e r n i n which the defendants 5 venue were 1101211, 1101226 was s o l d b y H a m p t o n a n d / o r G i n g e r S p e n c e r , B r o k e r e d t h r o u g h A s h l a n d and w r i t t e n by A c c e p t a n c e . " The Court instant ordered petitions answers and were filed on July 21, 2011; briefs. Standard of Review " ' " T h e q u e s t i o n o f p r o p e r v e n u e f o r an a c t i o n i s d e t e r m i n e d a t t h e commencement o f t h e a c t i o n . " ' Ex p a r t e P i k e F a b r i c a t i o n , I n c . , 859 So. 2d 1 0 8 9 , 1091 (Ala. 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e P r a t t , 815 So. 2d 5 3 2 , 534 (Ala. 2001)). I f venue i s improper at the o u t s e t , t h e n upon m o t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e c o u r t must t r a n s f e r t h e c a s e t o a c o u r t where venue i s p r o p e r . E x p a r t e P i k e F a b r i c a t i o n , 859 So. 2d a t 1091. I f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n i s d e n i e d , t h e n t h e defendant is entitled to seek review of this d e c i s i o n b y p e t i t i o n i n g f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. E x p a r t e A l a b a m a G r e a t S o u t h e r n R.R., 788 So. 2d 8 8 6 , 888 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . "'Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d 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 w h e r e t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2) an imperative d u t y upon the r e s p o n d e n t to perform, 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 ; (3) t h e l a c k o f another adequate remedy; and (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 o f t h e c o u r t . ' Ex p a r t e I n t e g o n C o r p . , 672 So. 2 d 4 9 7 , 499 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . T h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s mandamus petitions seeking review of a venue d e t e r m i n a t i o n by a s k i n g whether the t r i a l court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g or denying the m o t i o n f o r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e . Ex p a r t e S c o t t B r i d g e Co., 834 So. 2d 79, 81 ( A l a . 2002 ) . A l s o , in c o n s i d e r i n g s u c h a mandamus p e t i t i o n , t h i s C o u r t i s l i m i t e d t o t h o s e f a c t s t h a t were b e f o r e the trial c o u r t . Ex p a r t e P i k e F a b r i c a t i o n , 859 So. 2d a t 10 9 1 . " Ex parte Perfection Siding, I n c . , 882 6 So. 2d at 309-10. this 1101211, 1101226 Discussion In that their venue respective was improper underlying litigation therefore, erred action recent (Ala. 2010), venue that, of applies resides the further complaint contend to against such name 1975, t h e individuals, County where r e l a t e d t o procurement indisputably that this as Hampton and i n Tuscaloosa a l l actions court, 51 S o . 3 d 1 0 1 6 § 6-3-2, A l a . C o d e i s proper the r e l y i n g on Hughes, to actions insurance the time to transfer the Specifically, that contend the t r i a l motions proprietorships and where subject petitioners Patton's venue at and t h a t i n Ex p a r t e applicable to sole County their County. they maintain therefore, Spencer commenced decision provision clearly i n Hale i n denying to Tuscaloosa Court's p e t i t i o n s , the p e t i t i o n e r s occurred. the subsequent Acceptance and amendment o f Ashland d e f e n d a n t s , w h i c h amendment t h e y a r g u e was n o t i n k e e p i n g the rules cure of f i c t i t i o u s - p a r t y the improper thus, venue d i d not defeat practice, at the beginning the t r i a l a c t i o n pursuant to Rule 82(d), court's The was i n s u f f i c i e n t as with to of the a c t i o n and, mandate to transfer the A l a . R. C i v . P . , 7 to Tuscaloosa Rule 82(d)(1) provides: "When a n a c t i o n i s c o m m e n c e d l a y i n g v e n u e i n t h e w r o n g c o u n t y , t h e c o u r t , on t i m e l y m o t i o n 7 7 1101211, 1101226 County. P a t t o n c o u n t e r s t h a t venue i n Hale County at time the of commencement of the action she back says, controls § See Rule parties the filing of her 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code and Acceptance to because venue original 1975, i s proper 8 in proper because, c o n t e n d s , h e r amended c o m p l a i n t a d d i n g A c c e p t a n c e relates was and Ashland complaint; not she thus, § 6-3-2(a)(3), Hale County as to and A s h l a n d , i t i s a l s o p r o p e r t h e r e as t o Hampton. 82(c), have A l a . R. been Civ. joined, county i n which a n y one brought."). P. the ("Where suit may several be claims brought in or any disagree. We of the c l a i m s c o u l d p r o p e r l y have been "As t h i s C o u r t h a s f r e q u e n t l y h e l d , p r o p e r v e n u e f o r an a c t i o n i s d e t e r m i n e d a t t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f t h e a c t i o n . E x p a r t e M i t c h e l l , 690 So. 2 d 356 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ; E x p a r t e P a r k e r , 413 So. 2d 1105 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) ; of any d e f e n d a n t , s h a l l t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n t o t h e w h i c h t h e a c t i o n m i g h t have been p r o p e r l y f i l e d and s h a l l p r o c e e d as t h o u g h o r i g i n a l l y f i l e d t h e r e i n . " court i n the case Section 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) , which p r e s c r i b e s venue of civil actions against both foreign and domestic corporations, p r o v i d e s t h a t venue i s p r o p e r " [ i ] n the county i n which the plaintiff resided." Notably, Patton i s proceeding under subsection ( a ) ( 3 ) as o p p o s e d to subsection (a)(1), which p r o v i d e s t h a t venue a g a i n s t a c o r p o r a t e defendant w i l l l i e " [ i ] n the county i n which a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of the events or omissions g i v i n g r i s e to the c l a i m o c c u r r e d " Similarly, P a t t o n does not argue i n her r e s p o n s e t h a t the e v e n t s or omissions g i v i n g r i s e to the u n d e r l y i n g c l a i m s o c c u r r e d i n Hale County. 8 8 1101211, 1101226 E x p a r t e W i l s o n , 408 S o . 2 d 94 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ; s e e a l s o Rule 8 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. I f v e n u e i s n o t p r o p e r a t t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f an a c t i o n , t h e n , u p o n motion of the defendant, the action must be t r a n s f e r r e d t o a c o u r t w h e r e v e n u e w o u l d be p r o p e r . P a r k e r , s u p r a ; R u l e 8 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. " S e c t i o n 6-3-2, A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , g o v e r n s v e n u e o f a c t i o n s a g a i n s t i n d i v i d u a l s . I t p r o v i d e s t h a t such an a c t i o n m u s t be b r o u g h t i n t h e c o u n t y of the defendant's residence or ' i n the county i n which the act o r o m i s s i o n c o m p l a i n e d o f may h a v e b e e n d o n e o r may h a v e o c c u r r e d . ' § 6 - 3 - 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) ; see a l s o Rule 8 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , A l a . R. C i v . P." E x p a r t e O v e r s t r e e t , 748 S o . 2 d 1 94 , 1 96 ( A l a . 1 999) (emphasis added). This provision stated Court, in determining i n actions initiated the f o l l o w i n g the appropriate venue against a sole proprietorship, i n Ex p a r t e Hughes, supra: " H u g h e s t e s t i f i e d a t t h e h e a r i n g on h i s m o t i o n to t r a n s f e r t h a t he o p e r a t e d RBM T r a n s p o r t a s a n u n i n c o r p o r a t e d e n t i t y . H u g h e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d no p a r t n e r s i n t h e e n d e a v o r , a n d i t a p p e a r s t h a t RBM T r a n s p o r t h a d no d i s t i n c t l e g a l e x i s t e n c e o t h e r t h a n its o p e r a t i o n by Hughes. F o r l e g a l p u r p o s e s , RBM Transport C o m p a n y m u s t t h e r e f o r e be c o n s i d e r e d a s o l e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p . See B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 1427 (8th e d . 2004) ( d e f i n i n g ' s o l e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p ' as '[a] b u s i n e s s i n w h i c h one p e r s o n owns a l l t h e a s s e t s , owes a l l t h e l i a b i l i t i e s , and o p e r a t e s i n his or her personal c a p a c i t y ' ) . In C a r o l i n a Casualty Insurance Co. v . W i l l i a m s , 945 S o . 2 d 1030 , 1 0 3 5 (Ala. 2 0 0 6 ) , t h i s C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d t h a t 'Alabama l a w m a k e s no d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n an i n d i v i d u a l a n d a s o l e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p o p e r a t e d by t h e i n d i v i d u a l . They a r e c o n s i d e r e d t h e same f o r l e g a l p u r p o s e s . ' (Citing 9 1101211, 1101226 C l a r d y v . S a n d e r s , 551 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 7 , 1 0 5 9 - 6 0 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . ) A c c o r d i n g l y , w h e t h e r ' J e s s e H u g h e s d / b / a RBM T r a n s p o r t Company' i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as an i n d i v i d u a l o r a s o l e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p t h e e n d r e s u l t i s t h e same [ t h e ] b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t a c t i o n must be v i e w e d as one a g a i n s t a n i n d i v i d u a l , a n d v e n u e i s a c c o r d i n g l y g o v e r n e d by § 6 - 3 - 2 ( a ) , which by i t s terms a p p l i e s to 'proceedings of a legal nature against i n d i v i d u a l s ' (emphasis added)." 51 S o . 3d a t 1 0 1 8 - 1 9 In the affidavit (footnote omitted). present case, testimony Spencer presented demonstrating that undisputed Hampton is an u n i n c o r p o r a t e d e n t i t y she o p e r a t e s as a s o l e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p i n Tuscaloosa brings County, this case where she squarely within p a r t e Hughes. B e c a u s e Hampton, only named defendant venue p r o v i s i o n s proper either " i n the county or complained o f ... o c c u r r e d . " foregoing Tuscaloosa deficient county insurance where the action evidence h o l d i n g i n Ex of [Spencer venue Patton was and venue act the was Hampton's] or omission Under e i t h e r clearly purchased was t h e filed, d/b/a the not i n Hale 10 was applied, § 6-3-2(a)(3). coverage, That Court's i n which alternatives, County, this individuals residence the the resides. a sole proprietorship, at the time governing in also the County. proper of in allegedly 1101211, 1101226 Having filing, determined venue was that, at the time improper i n Hale of Patton's County, we now w h e t h e r P a t t o n ' s amendment s u b s t i t u t i n g A c c e p t a n c e as named defendants related action and was, t h e r e f o r e , proper venue As action back noted above, i s determined "[t]he We conclude a t t h e commencement 815 S o . 2 d 5 3 2 , 534 established and A s h l a n d to render Hale that of her County venue f o r an of the a c t i o n . " ( A l a . 2001). a i t was n o t . question of proper parte Pratt, consider t o t h e commencement sufficient f o r the action. original I t i s also Ex well that " [ l ] a t e r amendments t o t h e c o m p l a i n t t o add p a r t i e s or c l a i m s , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of s u b s t i t u t i n g t h e t r u e name o f a f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t y , are not c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether venue i s improper at t h e commencement of the action. See Rule 15(c)(4)[, A l a . R. C i v . P.] ('relation back i s p e r m i t t e d by p r i n c i p l e s a p p l i c a b l e to fictitious p a r t y p r a c t i c e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 9 ( h ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.]')." Ex parte Lugo de V e g a , also Overstreet, parte the Smith, action relate for 423 S o . 2 d 844 back the ( A l a . 2010). 748 S o . 2 d a t 197 ( r e c o g n i z i n g substitution would 65 S o . 3 d 8 8 6 , 892 ( A l a . 1982), of a party to for a the date purpose of of this " [ i ] n Ex Court held fictitiously named t h e commencement determining 11 that, proper See that party of the venue"). 1101211, 1101226 However, i n order party must comply w i t h Civ. P. 955, 958-59 the See the Columbia (Ala. relation-back 1983) P.,] state a cause body of the ignorant no named knowledge party and was of the in criteria: the 2) time fact the of 429 order 15(c), 1) [Ala. party party R. 2d R. must in the must be i n the filing a invoke Plaintiff party, the So. to plaintiff fictitious the apply, 9(h), A l a . fictitious and to Espey, of R u l e s 9(h) against at v. in complaint; identity Ltd. plaintiff, following action original of the having later of Int'l, ("[A] must meet t h e doctrine r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule Eng'g r e l a t i o n back p r i n c i p l e s Civ. of f o r the sense that intended the to be sued."). As 2008), explained a case in Patton Ex parte cites Griffin, i n her 4 response So. to 3d the 430 petitions: " T h i s C o u r t has h e l d w i t h r e g a r d t o R u l e 9(h) and t h e r e l a t i o n - b a c k p r i n c i p l e s o f R u l e 1 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., t h a t the p l a i n t i f f must s t a t e a c a u s e of a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t y i n t h e body of the o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t ; t h a t the p l a i n t i f f ' s i g n o r a n c e of the t r u e i d e n t i t y of the p a r t y intended t o be s u e d i s ' i n t h e s e n s e o f h a v i n g no k n o w l e d g e ' of the p a r t y ' s i d e n t i t y at the time the complaint was f i l e d ; a n d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f m u s t h a v e u s e d due d i l i g e n c e i n a t t e m p t i n g to d i s c o v e r the i d e n t i t y of t h e f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t y . C o l u m b i a E n g ' g I n t ' l L t d . v . E s p e y , 429 So. 2d 9 5 5 , 958 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . To be e n t i t l e d to the b e n e f i t of the relation-back principles, the plaintiff must act with due 12 (Ala. 1101211, 1101226 diligence to ascertain the fictitiously named d e f e n d a n t ' s t r u e name a n d t o p r o m p t l y amend the complaint to c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f y that defendant. The d u e - d i l i g e n c e s t a n d a r d , as s t a t e d i n D a v i s v . M i m s , 510 So. 2d 2 2 7 , 229 ( A l a . 1 987), ' i s whether the plaintiff knew, o r should h a v e known o r was on n o t i c e , t h a t the s u b s t i t u t e d d e f e n d a n t s were i n f a c t the p a r t i e s d e s c r i b e d fictitiously.'" 4 So. 3d 410-11 at 436. (Ala. See Civ. also App. relation back plaintiff who is truly the of filing time K i n a r d v. only C.A. Patton Patton Acceptance we n o t e , as do face the argument benefit of at the original 4 68 find that Rule Patton's in 2d 133, Ashland her of the claim 135 as agree with that Patton the of the 13 (quoting the untenable. of the filed. Ashland original Specifically, as no we identified the company c o v e r a g e on P a t t o n ' s "'ha[d] after instant i d e n t i t y of filing at (Ala. 1 985))). to p e t i t i o n e r s that either diligent defendants response complaint the s u b j e c t we 398, allows a c h a n g e o f v e n u e was ignorant original 2d 9(h) '" t h e p e t i t i o n e r s , t h a t A c c e p t a n c e was of So. "'[t]he complaint So. and time 892 of the defendant's i d e n t i t y motion seeking whom H a m p t o n p r o c u r e d Therefore, that the contends, Martin, (noting ignorant t h a t " [ s h e ] was complaint," the for added A c c e p t a n c e petitions, and 2004) K e l l y & Co., Hampton's i n i t i a l Although McGhee v . there on from behalf. can be knowledge' no of 1101211, 1101226 [Acceptance and/or complaint was filed" to attempting discover named p a r t [ i e s ] . " In Ashland's] addition, or that the note she at "used the due identit[ies] of 4 So. date Patton's i s before litigation company the that, -- 3d as at reflected dated lounge Acceptance as as fictitiously on documentation to Patton as following coverage, i d e n t i f y Acceptance testified that when f o l l o w i n g the f i r e , inquire 27, and endorsement 2009 the Patton insurance "authorized in Patton's purchase of which insurance as h e r i n s u r e r , b u t S p e n c e r a l s o initially P a t t o n was about making her which resulting Patton's acknowledged -- c o m p l a i n t , not o n l y d i d the face of the p o l i c y , provided in the Acceptance's Furthermore, 9 April Patton's Ashland representative." was at identified and original policy, fire the diligence a t t a c h e d t o h e r amended c o m p l a i n t , a p o l i c y - c h a n g e reinstating time 436. Griffin, we identit[ies] a formal telephoned her office r e f e r r e d d i r e c t l y to Ashland to claim. T h e p e t i t i o n e r s c o n t e n d t h a t , as d e m o n s t r a t e d t h r o u g h t h e d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y o f S p e n c e r and a c e r t i f i e d - m a i l r e c e i p t , copies of a l l i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t i n e n t to Patton's policy, i n c l u d i n g documents i d e n t i f y i n g b o t h A c c e p t a n c e and A s h l a n d , w e r e p r o v i d e d t o P a t t o n ' s i n i t i a l c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d on J u l y 8, 2 0 0 9 , b e f o r e h e r o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t was filed. 9 14 1101211, 1101226 Moreover, complaint although properly fictitiously complaint, Patton Acceptance defendants included the language o f h e r amended belie Patton's argument i n t h i s brief to Court, 2009, approximately original Patton two complaint, states months [Patton] alleged Patton's reveals response that defendants them, although at of p. A-C, 2. o f any language names argues. remained of substitution, as p a r t i e s the f i l i n g appears i n her filing amended to 16, of the complaint ... , a n d ... S p e n c e r f o r However, that of amended complaint." the were pleading added addition as pleading, was fictitiously we note complaint named both the despite named d e f e n d a n t s complaint. a expressing and t h e f a c t t h a t , amended 15 their In f a c t , fictitiously i n Patton's of that the an i n t h e amended the a l l e g e d i n t e n d e d " s u b s t i t u t i o n " the p u r p o r t e d original o f a c t i o n were a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t true as P a t t o n her for " [ o ] n October and A s h l a n d to suggest the Ashland i n the o r i g i n a l Acceptance i s nothing substitution defendants brief, and numerous causes there absence parties in that filed the and amended Specifically, after ... , A s h l a n d her complaint regard. s u b s t i t u t i n g Acceptance fictitious that substituted named this contends A-C Thus, a l l defendants as that 1101211, were 1101226 purportedly Patton's fictitiously suit Therefore, respect, were still whatever her named complaint argument that substitution of fictitiously named defendants. See addition Overstreet, of substitution of party, would proper a a venue"). 1106 defendants not party ( A l a . 1982 ) , a n d but, So. as for a also Ex for parte Ex p a r t e did this the not effect added (holding distinguished Parker, 4 08 new "that from the named fictitious of determining purposes Wilson, a identified merely a t 197 previously back Patton. in previously 2d of support to rather, 748 relate See for to advance amendment party, new may seems defendants the her commencement unknown Patton petitioners' named the apparently arguments amended at 413 So. So. 2d 2d 1105, 97 (Ala. 94, 1981). Even assuming, procedural steps defendants described we conclude that with that pleading, the Ashland to of possessed, i n her "who diligence, assisted 16 took and the to proper Ashland original before information due parties Patton Acceptance fictitiously sufficient the that substitute Patton exercise were however, for complaint, the filing date put her notice, that on Acceptance [Hampton], and of and failed 1101211, to 1101226 procure is ... full undisputed identifying coverage insurance...." that both Acceptance o r i g i n a l complaint. that she was complaint was issuing 185, her Patton We, of ( A l a . 2003) reasonably v. Norwood 1991) (concluding possession prior appears also the Pearson job t i t l e s that, v. of Inc., their medical filing of 577 So. 2d original intended to time of her in the she least, that, i n f o r m a t i o n was in easily the exercise of a s c e r t a i n a b l e by 17 2d "could 8 60 , in not 8 65 sued"). the due named Instead, i t Patton as w e l l policy Cf. Ex as that or, at diligence, Patton. (Ala. revealed complaint, of and plaintiff's a l l e g e d l y provided i n s u f f i c i e n t insurance coverage, very So. fictitiously initial issuance in plaintiff's o f b o t h A c c e p t a n c e and A s h l a n d , roles role 883 complaint supposed respective their records be initial identities"), identify the of Brooks, her argument her or to at filed time "parties as she of coworkers, ignorant to before identities that knew t h e i d e n t i t i e s their at Clinic, sufficient defendants Ashland It documentation ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t , b a s e d on been Miller knowledge their See k n o w l e d g e o f names a n d have provided ignorant" policy. 187-88 and s u p r a n.2. t h e r e f o r e , d i s a g r e e w i t h the "truly filed was See the that parte 1101211, 1101226 Nationwide Ins. ("conclud[ing] Nationwide Co., that 991 So. 2d 1287, [plaintiff's] 12 91 amendment f o r a f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t ( A l a . 2008 ) to substitute [did] not r e l a t e back to the date of her o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t b e c a u s e s h e knew o r should identity" have known Nationwide's as her insurer or " c o u l d have d i s c o v e r e d N a t i o n w i d e ' s i d e n t i t y and t h e e x i s t e n c e of ... c o v e r a g e Ismail, 2011) s i m p l y by e x a m i n i n g her p o l i c y " ) , [Ms. 1 1 0 0 7 2 6, A u g . 1 2 , 2 0 1 1 ] (finding records that, identifying where S o . 3d physician , (Ala. possessed plaintiffs treating and Ex p a r t e medical before they filed o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t , " [ t h e y ] d i d n o t e x e r c i s e due d i l i g e n c e before filing their complaint, i n identifying t h e p r o p e r p a r t y t o be s u e d " ) . conclude, as we "unreasonable to [Ashland's] and did in believe Given [physician] as those circumstances, we Pearson, that [Acceptance's] supra, [Patton] under the f i c t i t i o u s - p a r t y 9(h)." that was identities proceed ... was ignorant of required to 883 S o . 2 d a t 1 8 8 . Because substituted Patton's Acceptance and for fictitiously original complaint, practice as i t Ashland named were not defendants f o r purposes 18 a l l o w e d by of Rule properly included in establishing 1101211, venue her 1101226 Patton's original improper venue. amendment complaint venue defendant. of f o r purposes the instant Because, back and d i d not render a t t h e commencement Instead, commencement d i d not relate under t o the date of Hale County, of the action, of establishing action, Hampton § 6-3-2, v e n u e a venue was an proper at the sole County i n Hale the was improper as t o Hampton, a s o l e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p , the t r i a l exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying the motions to transfer the case to Tuscaloosa Perfection the County, Siding, Inc., 882 S o . 2 d a t 3 0 9 - 1 0 . f o r e g o i n g , we c o n c l u d e requirements f o r the mandamus; t h e r e f o r e , order denying issuance the motions the Tuscaloosa that the t r i a l g r a n t i n g those motions to w h e r e v e n u e was p r o p e r . the petitioners of to transfer Ex p a r t e In l i g h t of h a v e met t h e the requested court i sdirected court writs of to vacate i t s and t o e n t e r an o r d e r and t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n Circuit Court. 1101211 -- P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. 1101226 -- P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Malone, C . J . , and S t u a r t , P a r k e r , and Wise, 19 J J . , concur.
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.
