Attenta, Inc. v. Calhoun
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.
This case arose out of a workplace accident in which Lee Calhoun, Jr., Plaintiff Lula Calhoun's husband, was fatally injured. Mrs. Calhoun filed a complaint against her husband's employer seeking worker's compensation death benefits. The circuit court eventually entered an order awarding Mrs. Calhoun 375 weeks in death benefits. The order also released one party, Linden, Inc., from further liability. The court did not certify this order as final. In the meantime, litigation involving a host of other parties proceeded. The parties exchanged correspondence regarding settlement of Mrs. Calhoun's claims. While the back-and-forth continued on settlement, Mrs. Calhoun filed suit against three parties, including Linden, alleging the torts of outrage, fraud and conspiracy. In this suit, she alleged that while attempting to negotiate settlement with Linden, a dispute arose over the terms of Linden's waiver, ending with Linden halting the workers' compensation death benefit payments. Linden and its two co-defendants unsuccessfully moved to dismiss Mrs. Calhoun's last suit. The case was tried solely on outrage, ending with a jury awarding Mrs. Calhoun over $3.6 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Attenta, Inc., one of Linden's co-defendants, appealed. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Attenta argued that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the outrage claim, contending that the controlling issue was at the center of the dispute in the wrongful death action. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed, vacated the circuit court's judgment, and dismissed the case and appeal.
Download PDF
REL: 05/18/12 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 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 1100742 A t t e n t a , Inc. v. L u l a Calhoun Appeal from Wilcox C i r c u i t (CV-07-900046) Court WOODALL, J u s t i c e . This i s an a p p e a l from a judgment entered on a j u r y v e r d i c t f o r L u l a C a l h o u n , b a s e d on h e r c l a i m a l l e g i n g t h e t o r t of outrage a g a i n s t A t t e n t a , I n c . ( " A t t e n t a " ) , t h e t h i r d - p a r t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f the w o r k e r s ' compensation program f o r Linden 1100742 Lumber Company, I n c . ( " L i n d e n " ) . We v a c a t e the judgment and d i s m i s s t h e c a s e and t h e a p p e a l . I. F a c t u a l and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y T h i s case u l t i m a t e l y arose out of a workplace a c c i d e n t i n which Robert was fatally Lee Calhoun, J r . , the husband of L u l a i n j u r e d w h i l e e m p l o y e d by L i n d e n . 2003, f o l l o w i n g h i s d e a t h , C a l h o u n Linden i n t h e Marengo C i r c u i t Calhoun, On M a r c h 14, f i l e d a complaint against Court ( h e r e i n a f t e r sometimes r e f e r r e d t o as t h e "Marengo C o u n t y a c t i o n " ) , s e e k i n g w o r k e r ' s c o m p e n s a t i o n d e a t h b e n e f i t s , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 25¬ 5-60 e t seq. On o r a b o u t J u l y 14, 2003, C a l h o u n amended h e r c o m p l a i n t t o add as a d e f e n d a n t G.A. West & Company, I n c . ( " W e s t " ) . amended h e r c o m p l a i n t a s e c o n d t i m e on May defendants Forest Products She 14, 2004, t o add as Engineering, Inc. her husband's co- that West and F o r e s t P r o d u c t s were " i n c h a r g e o f t h e work a r e a a n d / o r the premises" where that occurred. They f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t West and F o r e s t P r o d u c t s Products"), and various employees. Her amended the n e g l i g e n t l y or wantonly of deceased complaints accident failed alleged injured t o p r o v i d e Mr. 2 ("Forest Mr. Calhoun Calhoun a safe 1100742 p l a c e t o work, r e s u l t i n g i n h i s w r o n g f u l d e a t h . alleged w i l l f u l Finally, they m i s c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t o f t h e c o - e m p l o y e e s . On June 1, 2005, t h e Marengo C i r c u i t C o u r t i s s u e d " f i n d i n g s o f fact, c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w , a n d o r d e r " as t o C a l h o u n ' s w o r k e r ' s compensation claim against Linden, weekly death b e n e f i t s f o r 375 weeks. awarding Calhoun future The o r d e r a l s o s t a t e d , in pertinent part: " I t i s f u r t h e r ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that [Linden] shall be released and forever discharged from a l l c l a i m s a r i s i n g out of the d e c e a s e d ' s employment w i t h [ i t ] a n d t h a t [ L i n d e n ] i s s u b r o g a t e d , as p r o v i d e d u n d e r A l a . Code § 25-5-11 (1975) as amended, t o any recovery through s e t t l e m e n t , j u d g m e n t o r o t h e r w i s e t h a t [ C a l h o u n ] may r e c e i v e o r r e c o v e r f r o m o r on b e h a l f o f a n y t h i r d p a r t y f o r t h e i n j u r i e s r e c e i v e d by t h e deceased and/or [ C a l h o u n ] a n d made t h e s u b j e c t o f t h i s action." (Emphasis added.) final The c o u r t d i d n o t c e r t i f y judgment p u r s u a n t In t o Rule t h e meantime, l i t i g a t i o n the order 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. i n v o l v i n g the other p a r t i e s and c l a i m s p r o c e e d e d a p a c e . F o r e x a m p l e , on J a n u a r y West judgment. moved for a summary summary j u d g m e n t on A p r i l for Calhoun 20, 2007, moved 4, 2007, a n d F o r e s t P r o d u c t s a summary j u d g m e n t on A u g u s t 3, 2007. denied on May 3, 2007. 3 as a for a moved West's m o t i o n was 1100742 In early negotiations Linden, September occurred (3) West, and 2007, L i n d e n ' s that l e t t e r counsel 2007, among (4) a flurry counsel for Forest Products. sent a letter of (1) On settlement Calhoun, (2) September to Calhoun's 5, counsel; stated, in pertinent p a r t : " T h i s l e t t e r c o n f i r m s t h a t [ L i n d e n ] has o f f e r e d t o r e l e a s e i t s c r e d i t and s u b r o g a t i o n l i e n , i n p a r t , against the worker's compensation and medical b e n e f i t s p a i d t o [ C a l h o u n ] i n t h e above r e f e r e n c e d a c t i o n [ ] , so l o n g as [Calhoun] acknowledges and a g r e e s t o w a i v e h e r r i g h t t o s e e k and [ L i n d e n ] t o r e c o v e r t h e n e x t $75,000.00 i n f u t u r e d e a t h b e n e f i t s a l l e g e d l y due t o h e r . I n e x c h a n g e f o r t h i s o f f e r by my c l i e n t , [ C a l h o u n ] must r e l e a s e [ L i n d e n and Mr. C a l h o u n ' s c o - e m p l o y e e s ] f r o m any and a l l c l a i m s f o r which [Calhoun has] a s s e r t e d a n d / o r c o u l d have a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t these defendants and any other [Linden] employee. "Per our conversation this afternoon, I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t [Calhoun] will accept this offer. I am g l a d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s were a b l e t o come t o a r e s o l u t i o n of these matters." ( S e c o n d e m p h a s i s added.) The n e x t day -- September 6, 2007 -- West's c o u n s e l Calhoun's counsel a l e t t e r , stating, in pertinent part: " [ Y ] o u j u s t c o n f i r m e d by t e l e p h o n e t h a t [ C a l h o u n has] c o m p r o m i s e d [her] c l a i m s a g a i n s t [West] i n exchange for ... payment in the amount of [$175,000]. A more f o r m a l r e l e a s e and indemnity agreement w i l l f o l l o w . Of c o u r s e , t h e s e t t l e m e n t requires [Calhoun] t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r -and 4 sent 1100742 protect [West] f r o m subrogation lien. -- the worker's compensation " P l e a s e r e p l y w i t h t h e manner i n w h i c h you w o u l d like the checks written along with your tax i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers." T h a t same day, C a l h o u n ' s c o u n s e l r e s p o n d e d t o West's s t a t i n g , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "This w i l l acknowledge y o u r l e t t e r o f September 6, 2007. r e c e i p t of You s h o u l d make a c h e c k i n t h e amount o f $175,000.00 ... t o L u l a C a l h o u n and h e r .... with I will have someone f r o m my o u r t a x ID number counsel, office call your attorney secretary " A n o t h e r l e t t e r was s e n t t h a t same day, September 6, 2007, to Calhoun's letter counsel stated, from counsel i n pertinent f o r Forest Products. part: "This w i l l confirm t h a t we have a g r e e d t o r e s o l v e and s e t t l e a l l c l a i m s b r o u g h t i n t h e C a l h o u n ... c a s e [ ] a g a i n s t [ F o r e s t P r o d u c t s ] f o r a payment o f [$17,500] i n r e t u r n f o r a p r o t a n t o f u l l and f i n a l r e l e a s e o f a l l c l a i m s and a p r o t a n t o j o i n t s t i p u l a t i o n of d i s m i s s a l w i t h p r e j u d i c e of [Forest Products]. " I w i l l have a c h e c k i n t h a t amount made p a y a b l e t o [ C a l h o u n ' s c o u n s e l ] and d e l i v e r i t t o you upon r e c e i p t o f t h e e x e c u t e d R e l e a s e and f i l e d Joint Stipulation. "Thank you f o r y o u r p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m i n h a n d l i n g t h i s c a s e w i t h me, and g o o d l u c k i n y o u r claims a g a i n s t [West]." 5 That 1100742 (Emphasis i n o r i g i n a l . ) Correspondence beginning on September 11, 2007, however, r e v e a l s t h a t e l e m e n t s o f u n c e r t a i n t y r e m a i n e d as t o t h e t e r m s of the proposed settlements. wrote Calhoun's counsel, On stating, that day, Linden's i n pertinent counsel part: "My l e t t e r o f September 5, 2007, accurately s t a t e s our agreement. Your l e t t e r which f o l l o w e d t h e n e x t day does n o t d i s p u t e i t . I t was n o t u n t i l you c a l l e d me y e s t e r d a y t h a t you a t t e m p t e d t o change or o t h e r w i s e a l t e r our agreement. "Your a t t e m p t t o r e - c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e s e t t l e m e n t as ' o f f t h e b a c k - e n d o f f u t u r e d e a t h b e n e f i t s ' makes no s e n s e . Generally, the purpose of Alabama's Worker's Compensation A c t i s t o p r e v e n t the double r e c o v e r y o f b e n e f i t s . ... Y o u r new a s s e r t i o n w o u l d have t h e e f f e c t o f d o i n g j u s t t h a t -- p r o v i d i n g L u l a Calhoun w i t h double b e n e f i t s . T h a t was n o t p a r t o f our agreement. The s t o r y t h a t you a r e now a d v a n c i n g ... n e v e r o c c u r r e d . "As you know, my client, [Linden], needs immediate r e l i e f from i t s o b l i g a t i o n t o continue p a y i n g L u l a Calhoun death b e n e f i t s . I t i s the only r e a s o n t h a t we a g r e e d t o n e g o t i a t e w i t h [ h e r ] i n t h e f i r s t place. " I have n o t i f i e d [West's] c o u n s e l , by c o p y o f t h i s l e t t e r , that [Linden] continues to a s s e r t i t s f u l l c r e d i t and s u b r o g a t i o n i n t e r e s t s i n t h i s c a s e and any payment o f s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e e d s by them w o u l d be a t i t s p e r i l . " (Emphasis added.) 6 1100742 On September counsel, s t a t i n g , 27, 2007, West's counsel wrote Calhoun's in pertinent part: " I have r e c e i v e d s e t t l e m e n t c h e c k s . We are r e a d y , w i l l i n g and a b l e t o pay ... $175, 000.00 t o L u l a C a l h o u n .... As you know, h o w e v e r , we have some c o n c e r n a b o u t [ L i n d e n ' s c o u n s e l ' s ] S e p t e m b e r 11, 2007, l e t t e r a r t i c u l a t i n g some k i n d o f d i s p u t e between [Calhoun] and [ L i n d e n ] , and n o t i f y i n g us t h a t [Linden] 'continues t o a s s e r t i t s f u l l c r e d i t and s u b r o g a t i o n i n t e r e s t s i n t h i s c a s e and any payment o f s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e e d s by [West] w o u l d be a t its peril.' " [ W e s t ' s ] s e t t l e m e n t was w i t h [ C a l h o u n ] , n o t with [Linden]. [Calhoun i s ] r e s p o n s i b l e t o s a t i s f y [Linden's] workers' compensation l i e n s . "... [Y]ou a s k e d t h a t I h o l d on t o t h e s e c h e c k s f o r the time b e i n g . I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t you ... a r e working to resolve the present dispute with [Linden]. I l o o k f o r w a r d t o h e a r i n g f r o m you n e x t week r e g a r d i n g t h e m a t t e r . " (Emphasis added.) On S e p t e m b e r 21, had b e e n r e a c h e d for 2007 -- on t h e t h e o r y t h a t e x t i n g u i s h i n g Linden's f u r t h e r worker's compensation death liability litigation "second continued. amended answer On October to to Calhoun b e n e f i t s -- d i s c o n t i n u e d t h e m o n t h l y payments t o C a l h o u n . the settlements 25, plaintiff's Attenta Nevertheless, 2007, West, second in a amended c o m p l a i n t , " f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m a g a i n s t C a l h o u n and a c r o s s c l a i m a g a i n s t L i n d e n f o r " i n t e r p l e a d e r . " On November 8, 2007, 7 1100742 Linden filed an answer t o t h e cross-claim and an "answer of action by counterclaim." On filing November 12, a three-count 2007, C a l h o u n complaint a g a i n s t L i n d e n and A t t e n t a as "the Wilcox outrage, alleged, (2) County fraud, i n pertinent i n the Wilcox Circuit Court ( h e r e i n a f t e r sometimes r e f e r r e d t o action"), and commenced t h i s (3) alleging conspiracy. (1) the The tort complaint part: "8. On o r a b o u t S e p t e m b e r 5, 2007, L u l a C a l h o u n was n e g o t i a t i n g s e t t l e m e n t of a l a w s u i t against [West] r e s u l t i n g from the death of Robert Lee Calhoun, J r . The p a r t i e s were a t t e m p t i n g t o work o u t a s e t t l e m e n t c o n t i n g e n t on t h e w a i v e r o f a l l r i g h t of c r e d i t / s u b r o g a t i o n to a l l m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s and w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n d e a t h b e n e f i t s p r e v i o u s l y p a i d by [ L i n d e n ] . "9. A d i s p u t e a r o s e o v e r t h e t e r m s o f t h e w a i v e r by [ L i n d e n ] . [ L i n d e n ] c o n t e n d s no a g r e e m e n t was reached over the terms of the w a i v e r . "10. [ L i n d e n ] n o t i f i e d [West] t h a t d e f e n d a n t , [ L i n d e n ] , c o n t i n u e s t o a s s e r t i t s f u l l c r e d i t and subrogation interest i n p l a i n t i f f , Lula Calhoun's c a s e and [ t h a t ] any payment o f s e t t l e m e n t b e n e f i t s by [West] w o u l d be a t i t s p e r i l . "11. [ L i n d e n and] A t t e n t a t h e n s t o p p e d payment on a l l w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n d e a t h b e n e f i t payments to [Calhoun]. " 8 of 1100742 "13. D e f e n d a n t s have c o m m i t t e d t h e t o r t o f o u t r a g e by e n g a g i n g i n an u n l a w f u l m e n t a l and f i n a n c i a l a s s a u l t on [ C a l h o u n ] w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o c a u s e [ h e r ] s e v e r e e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s and f i n a n c i a l extortion i n order to force a settlement of [ C a l h o u n ' s ] t h i r d p a r t y a c t i o n a g a i n s t [West] t h a t w o u l d be a d v a n t a g e o u s t o [ L i n d e n ] . Defendants' a c t i o n s a r e i n d i r e c t v i o l a t i o n o f t h e June 1, 2005, Order of the C i r c u i t C o u r t o f Marengo County, A l a b a m a , f i l e d h e r e w i t h as E x h i b i t 1. Defendants' c o n d u c t i s so o u t r a g e o u s i n c h a r a c t e r and so e x t r e m e i n d e g r e e so as t o be r e g a r d e d as a t r o c i o u s and utterly intolerable i n a c i v i l i z e d society. "14. As a p r o x i m a t e c o n s e q u e n c e o f d e f e n d a n t s ' o u t r a g e o u s c o n d u c t , p l a i n t i f f has b e e n c a u s e d t o suffer severe emotional stress and physical s u f f e r i n g and f i n a n c i a l l o s s . " "16. P u r s u a n t t o an O r d e r e n t e r e d by t h e C o u r t the case s t y l e d , L u l a Calhoun, e t a l . v s . L i n d e n in Lumber Company, I n c . , and b e a r i n g C i v i l a c t i o n No. CV-03-50 i n t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f Marengo C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , d e f e n d a n t , [ L i n d e n ] was o r d e r e d t o p a y t o p l a i n t i f f as f o l l o w s : "'The P l a i n t i f f L u l a C a l h o u n s h a l l r e c e i v e gross workers' compensation b e n e f i t s of $379.33 f o r t h e n e x t 66 weeks, s a i d amount representing 2/3 of the workers' compensation b e n e f i t s payable d u r i n g s a i d period. Thereafter, the P l a i n t i f f Lula Calhoun shall receive gross workers' c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s o f $437.50 f o r t h e n e x t 309 weeks t h e r e a f t e r , s a i d amount r e p r e s e n t i n g the f u l l workers' compensation d e a t h b e n e f i t o f 50% o f t h e a v e r a g e w e e k l y wage o f t h e d e c e a s e d w o r k e r w i t h one dependent. S a i d g r o s s b e n e f i t s awarded are 9 1100742 s u b j e c t t o an a t t o r n e y ' s f e e as s e t f o r t h l a t e r i n t h i s order.' "See Second Addendum to Findings of Fact, C o n c l u s i o n s o f Law, a n d O r d e r , s i g n e d b y Hon. E d d i e Hardaway, J r . , d a t e d June 1, 2005 a n d a t t a c h e d h e r e t o as E x h i b i t 1. "17. [Linden and A t t e n t a ] r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e C o u r t and t o [Calhoun] t h a t w o r k e r s ' compensation d e a t h b e n e f i t p a y m e n t s w o u l d be made p u r s u a n t t o t h i s Order, and [Linden and A t t e n t a ] d i d i n f a c t b e g i n making payments p u r s u a n t t o t h e Order. "18. Attenta's] be made. [Calhoun] relied upon [Linden and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t s a i d payments w o u l d "19. S a i d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s were f a l s e a n d [ L i n d e n and Attenta] made them willfully to induce [ C a l h o u n ] t o a c t , o r were f r a u d u l e n t l y o r r e c k l e s s l y represented as t r u e and i n t e n d e d to deceive [Calhoun]. "20. [ C a l h o u n ] b e l i e v e d s a i d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a n d relied upon them a n d a c t e d upon them t o h e r detriment. "21. As a p r o x i m a t e r e s u l t o f s a i d f r a u d a n d d e c e i t , [ C a l h o u n ] was c a u s e d t o s u f f e r damages." (Emphasis added.) In t h e Marengo County action, meanwhile, the court c o n t i n u e d t o e n t e r t a i n motions f i l e d by v a r i o u s p a r t i e s . November 13, Products filed contending 2007, (1) f o r example, a "motion that the insurer t o enforce i t had 10 settlement successfully On f o r Forest agreement," negotiated a 1100742 settlement w i t h Calhoun, agreement/release to (2) t h a t i t had m a i l e d a c h e c k and Calhoun's a g r e e m e n t / r e l e a s e had counsel, but (3) not been e x e c u t e d , d e s p i t e that the an the passage o f more t h a n a month. In W i l c o x C o u n t y , b o t h L i n d e n and A t t e n t a moved t o d i s m i s s other things, matter its that the jurisdiction resolution order the Wilcox issued Wilcox over the turned by County a c t i o n , the on the Circuit contending, Court lacked dispute, because, c o n s t r u c t i o n and Marengo unsuccessfully Circuit Court subject- they effect in among the argued, of the Marengo C o u n t y a c t i o n on C a l h o u n ' s w o r k e r ' s c o m p e n s a t i o n c l a i m a g a i n s t Linden. L i n d e n was e v e n t u a l l y r e l e a s e d from the W i l c o x a c t i o n a f t e r s e t t l i n g w i t h Calhoun. The c a s e was County t r i e d to a j u r y s o l e l y on t h e t o r t - o f - o u t r a g e c l a i m a g a i n s t A t t e n t a . The jury in awarded Calhoun c o m p e n s a t o r y damages and the trial court entered $3,695,298.19 ($1,695,298.19 $2,000,000 i n p u n i t i v e damages), a j u d g m e n t on t h a t v e r d i c t . and Attenta appealed. II. On Circuit appeal, Court Attenta lacked Discussion renews i t s argument t h a t subject-matter 11 jurisdiction the over Wilcox this 1100742 action, because, i t contends, W i l c o x County a c t i o n i s at the center Marengo C o u n t y a c t i o n . over the dispute We the c o n t r o l l i n g issue of the dispute Therefore, says A t t e n t a , i n the i n the jurisdiction l a y e x c l u s i v e l y i n t h e Marengo C i r c u i t C o u r t . agree. A t t h e o u t s e t , we n o t e t h a t t h e Marengo C o u n t y a c t i o n was still p e n d i n g when t h e W i l c o x This was s o , b e c a u s e multiple claims disposing the action against multiple of the worker's certification worker's i n Marengo defendants, compensation c l a i m was n o t c e r t i f i e d as a f i n a l 54(b) County a c t i o n judgment. was commenced. County and t h e o r d e r against Linden The a b s e n c e o f a R u l e claim interlocutory and subject m o d i f i c a t i o n a t any t i m e b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l App. involved i n s u c h a c a s e r e n d e r s t h e o r d e r on t h e compensation ArvinMeritor, 1 to judgment. I n c . v . H a n d l e y , 12 So. 3d 669, 676 ( A l a . C i v . 2007). It i s w e l l s e t t l e d that i f the t r i a l court lacks matter jurisdiction over an action, then subject- a l l orders and The u l t i m a t e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e Marengo C o u n t y a c t i o n a n d the t i m i n g o f t h a t d i s p o s i t i o n a r e n o t e n t i r e l y c l e a r from t h e r e c o r d , a l t h o u g h i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e Marengo C o u n t y a c t i o n was p e n d i n g when t h e c o m p l a i n t on t h e W i l c o x C o u n t y a c t i o n was filed. 1 12 1100742 judgments case -- Corp. , i n that are 71 void So. 3d Kessler-Greystone, equally well action ab 642 LLC, that the such j u r i s d i c t i o n , and an City (Ala. 70 So. concurrent j u r i s d i c t i o n , o f a c a u s e has except initio. 637, settled -- of "'where 319 two dismissing H u n t s v i l l e v. 2011); 3d 315, t h e one order Bernals, more (quoting (1938)). 1980) Ex p a r t e determination See (the jurisdiction 726 B u r c h , 236 a l s o Ex p a r t e Jefferson over an So. Ala. 2d 662, Moore, 382 Circuit action have which f i r s t takes cognizance final I n s . Co., v. It is courts of Court to m e c h a n i c ' s l i e n s where t h e r e was 615, 665, So. 617 184 exercise the the enforcement of i t s judgments or d e c r e e s . ' " Liberty Nat'l Life Inc. e x c l u s i v e r i g h t t o e n t e r t a i n and to the COLSA ( A l a . 2011) . or the G r i m e s v. (Ala. So. 2d 548, could the 1998) 694, not declare action 550 697 (Ala. exercise validity a l r e a d y pending i n the of Shelby C i r c u i t C o u r t an a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e the l i e n s ; the i s s u e r a i s e d in could the Jefferson County action S h e l b y C o u n t y a c t i o n ) ; O r t o n v. 309 So. 2d jurisdiction 94, of 96 a (1975) cause ... be litigated Cheatham, 293 Ala. ("[T]he court first must be allowed to 13 in 639, the 643, assuming pursue and 1100742 exercise i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n to the e x c l u s i o n of a l l c o o r d i n a t e tribunals."). According action to "simply comply w i t h Circuit are not [Linden] based upon i n the Court did claim did Wilcox [Attenta's] County failure June 1, 2005, not have She exclusive jurisdiction of a s s e r t s , the r e s o l u t i o n of her not require the Wilcox As the complaint basis of this tort-of- County jury to e n t i t l e d t o b e n e f i t s a f t e r September payments. b e l i e d by h e r p l e a d i n g s order s a y s t h a t t h e Marengo 2007, t h e d a t e on w h i c h A t t e n t a d i s c o n t i n u e d t h e death-benefit to and A t t e n t a pay w o r k e r ' s c o m p e n s a t i o n d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r she was 21, claims C a l h o u n ' s b r i e f , a t 16. d i s p u t e , b e c a u s e , she outrage her [ t h e Marengo C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s ] directing that benefits." Calhoun, However, Calhoun's i n the Wilcox her monthly assertions are County a c t i o n . tort-of-outrage alleged expressly that Attenta claim, Calhoun's " u n l a w f u l [ l y ] , " and " i n d i r e c t v i o l a t i o n o f t h e June 1, 2005 o r d e r of the Circuit C o u r t o f Marengo C o u n t y , " d i s c o n t i n u e d w o r k e r ' s compensation death-benefit [her] emotional her fraud payments " w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o c a u s e severe d i s t r e s s and f i n a n c i a l e x t o r t i o n . " As t h e b a s i s f o r claim, Calhoun quoted 14 from the Marengo Circuit 1100742 Court's o r d e r on t h e w o r k e r ' s that Attenta fraudulently [her] t h a t worker's be made p u r s u a n t The c o m p e n s a t i o n c l a i m and "represented to the c o u r t and to t h i s order." employed (Emphasis added.) during the trial W i l c o x County a c t i o n r e i n f o r c e d her r e l i a n c e i n her on t h e o r d e r on h e r w o r k e r ' s Attenta. colloquy in the complaint c o m p e n s a t i o n c l a i m i n t h e Marengo For example, d u r i n g her c a s e - i n - c h i e f , Calhoun c a l l e d to the witness stand T i f f a n y C a h i l l , for to c o m p e n s a t i o n d e a t h b e n e f i t payments w o u l d s t r a t e g y Calhoun County a c t i o n . alleged During Cahill's a claims adjuster testimony, the following occurred: "Q. [By C a l h o u n ' s c o u n s e l : ] ... A f t e r t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f Marengo C o u n t y e n t e r e d an o r d e r t h a t d e a t h b e n e f i t s had t o be p a i d , was t h a t o r d e r p r o v i d e d t o you? "A. [By C a h i l l : ] "Q. And d i d you t h e n s t a r t pursuant to that order? "A. Yes, s i r . "Q. So, t h e r e ' s no q u e s t i o n , you 1, 2005, o r d e r ? "A. Yes, s i r . "Q. And you s t a r t e d s e n d i n g o u t c h e c k s that order? Yes, s i r . 15 sending out checks r e c e i v e d the June pursuant to 1100742 "A. Yes, sir. " "Q. A n d a t some p o i n t , checks, r i g h t ? you stopped paying the " "A. Yes, "Q. And p r i o r t o the stop payment on these dependent c h e c k s , t h e payments t h a t you had made t o [ C a l h o u n ] h a d b e e n made p u r s u a n t t o a court order i s s u e d by t h e C i r c u i t Court o f Marengo C o u n t y , c o r r e c t ? "A. Yes, "Q. A n d you n e v e r received an o r d e r f r o m t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f Marengo C o u n t y t e l l i n g y o u t o s t o p t h e d e p e n d e n t p a y m e n t s , d i d you? "A. No, "Q. D i d [Linden's c o u n s e l ] ever t e l l you t h a t they h a d an o r d e r f r o m t h e Marengo C o u n t y Circuit C o u r t t o s t o p p a y m e n t s on t h o s e c h e c k s ? "A. No, "Q. The p a y m e n t s were s t o p p e d w i t h o u t an o r d e r t h e C o u r t o f Marengo C o u n t y , c o r r e c t ? "A. Yes, (Emphasis sir. sir. sir. from sir." added.) Attenta's matter sir. response o f l a w was t h a t i n i t s motion "[t]he cessation 16 f o r a j u d g m e n t as a o f ... p a y m e n t s was 1100742 lawful under the [order], which provided for [Linden's] s t a t u t o r y r i g h t to c r e d i t against i t s death b e n e f i t in the event of a t h i r d - p a r t y s e t t l e m e n t . party settlement liability, ... amount was [Linden] g r e a t e r than and A t t e n t a had benefits." (Emphasis argument, A t t e n t a cited the no third- remaining further l i a b i l i t y In support for of that adopted i n t h i s principle ... Because the [Linden's] added.) t h a t an " ' a c t o r i s n e v e r l i a b l e liability state where he has done no more t h a n t o i n s i s t upon h i s l e g a l r i g h t s i n a p e r m i s s i b l e way.'" A m e r i c a n Road S e r v . 1980) v. (quoting Restatement (1948)). See I n c . , 814 legal Co. So. right motive, and also do, 215 he because of a bad do with no 361, 368 (Ala. Inc. v. impunity, Cellulink, has regardless right (g) in a legal a of way cause of a c t i o n a r i s e s a g a i n s t motive ( q u o t i n g T e x a s B e e f C a t t l e Co. (Tex. 2d ("'Whatever a man i f in exercising his legal damage r e s u l t s t o a n o t h e r , him Mobility, ( A l a . 2001) may So. (Second) o f T o r t s § 46 comment BellSouth 2d 203, to Inmon, 394 in exercising v. G r e e n , 921 the right.'" S.W.2d 203, 211 1996)). It i s abundantly c l e a r , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t Calhoun's a l l e g e d r i g h t to death-benefit p a y m e n t s a f t e r S e p t e m b e r 2007 was 17 the 1100742 threshold issue inextricably in the Wilcox County i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h the action subrogation and aspect was of the June 1, 2005, o r d e r i n t h e f i r s t - f i l e d Marengo C o u n t y a c t i o n . In o t h e r w o r d s , t h e Marengo C i r c u i t cognizance Court, having f i r s t o f t h e c a u s e , had " t h e e x c l u s i v e r i g h t and e x e r c i s e s u c h j u r i s d i c t i o n , to e n t e r t a i n to the f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h e a c t i o n and t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f i t s j u d g m e n t s and G r i m e s , 726 So. 2d a t 617, existence parties, Wilcox and legal effect jurisdiction Court over of exceeded this any settlement with third Consequently, the i t s authority in asserting Conclusion complaint f i l e d i n the W i l c o x County a c t i o n f a i l e d to invoke the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n Court; t h e r e f o r e , the action against Attenta i s void. judgment e n t e r e d "'A of the Wilcox will not support an appeal; d i s m i s s an a t t e m p t e d appeal v. 556, Cook, 989 So. 2d judgment e n t e r e d County by a i s absolutely void court must from such a v o i d judgment.' Vann 559 an Circuit i n the W i l c o x court lacking subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n and decrees," action. III. The of i n c l u d i n g any d i s p u t e r e g a r d i n g t h e s u c h as West and F o r e s t P r o d u c t s . Circuit taken appellate ( A l a . C i v . App. 18 2008)." MPQ, 1100742 I n c . v. B i r m i n g h a m R e a l t y Co., 78 So. 3d 391, 394 ( A l a . 2011) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t a n d d i s m i s s t h e c a s e a n d the appeal. JUDGMENT VACATED; CASE DISMISSED; AND APPEAL DISMISSED. Malone, C . J . , and B o l i n , Murdock, and Main, J J . , 19 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.
