Safetynet Youth Systems, LLC v. Guarantee Insurance Co.
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.
Plaintiff SafetyNet Youth Systems, LLC sued Defendants Guarantee Insurance Company, Patriot National Insurance Group, Randy Thomas, and Paul Harper in Dallas County Circuit Court. Defendants sought the writ of mandamus to direct the Dallas court to grant their motion for a transfer of venue to Lee County. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Dallas County was an inappropriate forum, and granted defendant's petition and issued the writ.
Download PDF
rel: 06/14/2013 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 the 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 ((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, 2012-2013 1120337 Ex p a r t e Guarantee Insurance Company e t a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : SafetyNet Youth Systems, LLC v. Guarantee Insurance Company e t a l . ) (Dallas C i r c u i t Court, CV-12-900151) MAIN, J u s t i c e . G u a r a n t e e I n s u r a n c e Company, P a t r i o t N a t i o n a l G r o u p , Randy Thomas, a n d P a u l H a r p e r Insurance (hereinafter referred to 1120337 collectively as " t h e i n s u r a n c e - c o m p a n y parties") are the d e f e n d a n t s i n an a c t i o n f i l e d b y S a f e t y N e t Y o u t h S y s t e m s , L L C , that i s pending i n the D a l l a s C i r c u i t Court. company p a r t i e s p e t i t i o n this Court The for a writ insurance- o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g the D a l l a s C i r c u i t Court t o vacate i t s order denying t h e i r motion t o t r a n s f e r the a c t i o n t o the Lee C i r c u i t Court and t o e n t e r an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e m o t i o n b e c a u s e , t h e y a r g u e , venue i n D a l l a s County i s improper. the basis that venue i s improper We g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n on i n Dallas County, a n d we issue the w r i t d i r e c t i n g the D a l l a s C i r c u i t Court t o t r a n s f e r the case t o t h e Lee C i r c u i t I. Facts Court. and P r o c e d u r a l History S a f e t y N e t i s an A l a b a m a l i m i t e d - l i a b i l i t y m a n a g i n g member i s L y n d e l l W h e a t l e y . corporation with i t sprincipal company. I t s Guarantee i s a F l o r i d a place of business i n Ft. L a u d e r d a l e and i t s r e g i s t e r e d agent i n Alabama i n J e f f e r s o n County; i t i s a wholly owned s u b s i d i a r y o f P a t r i o t . Patriot i s a Delaware c o r p o r a t i o n w i t h i t s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of business in F t . Lauderdale; i t i s solely a holding Thomas a n d P a u l H a r p e r a r e i n s u r a n c e & Hall, an i n s u r a n c e - b r o k e r a g e 2 company. Randy a g e n t s w i t h Cobbs, A l l e n and risk-management firm i n 1120337 Montgomery ("the brokerage firm"). Thomas Montgomery C o u n t y ; H a r p e r r e s i d e s i n Lee SafetyNet treatment, was and psychiatric formed other in 2001. treatment, to disadvantaged, SafetyNet two one i n Montgomery C o u n t y and provides including emotionally d i s t u r b e d youth. purchased a w o r k e r s ' compensation liability insurance policy the period August 25, 2009, abused, has t h r e e SafetyNet to housing, residential I n 2009, 1 and employers' Guarantee t h a t August 25, or facilities-¬ i n D a l l a s County. i s s u e d by in County. It services, resides covered 2010. The insurance-company p a r t i e s b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e a meeting t h a t took place i n Montgomery r e g a r d i n g p o l i c y , but to when the m a t e r i a l s before that meeting Guarantee contained SafetyNet the was issuance of t h a t insurance us c o n t a i n no i n f o r m a t i o n held. A premium i n the m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e notice as from us i n d i c a t e s t h a t renewed t h a t p o l i c y f o r t h e p e r i o d A u g u s t 25, 2010, One o f t h e e x h i b i t s i n t h i s c a s e , a c o p y o f l e t t e r h e a d b e a r i n g t h e l o g o " S a f e t y N e t Academy . V i l l a . C r o s s i n g s , " r e f e r s t o a " S a f e t y N e t Academy" w i t h an a d d r e s s i n D a l l a s C o u n t y and a " S a f e t y N e t - M o n t g o m e r y V i l l a & C r o s s i n g s " w i t h an a d d r e s s i n Montgomery C o u n t y . A n o t h e r e x h i b i t , a r e c o r d f r o m t h e A l a b a m a S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e , shows t h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f "SafetyNet YouthCare, I n c . " I t i s u n d i s p u t e d , however, t h a t the e n t i t y i n v o l v e d i n t h i s case i s S a f e t y N e t Youth Systems, LLC. 1 3 1120337 to August 25, purchased a 2011. policy SafetyNet of insurance however, i t i s u n d i s p u t e d case are the two the from covering i t also Guarantee in had 2008; at issue i n t h i s 2009-2011 subject p o l i c i e s " ) . subject p o l i c i e s that t h a t the p o l i c i e s policies r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e states (hereinafter SafetyNet describes as f o l l o w s : "The p o l i c i e s i n q u e s t i o n were m a r k e t e d and s o l d as 'retro p o l i c i e s ' which, because they offer a r e t r o s p e c t i v e a n a l y s i s a f t e r the p o l i c y period, would present the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r SafetyNet to receive a p o l i c y refund. Such a r e f u n d w o u l d o c c u r a f t e r a f i n a l premium c a l c u l a t i o n and a u d i t o f SafetyNet's financial records with respect to W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n and E m p l o y e r ' s L i a b i l i t y w h i c h was t o be c o n d u c t e d s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f the p o l i c y y e a r . " SafetyNet's After brief, at 1 a dispute insurance-company ( r e f e r e n c e t o an e x h i b i t o m i t t e d ) . o v e r premiums a r o s e , parties and several SafetyNet sued fictitiously p a r t i e s i n t h e D a l l a s C i r c u i t C o u r t on J u l y 31, 2012, the named alleging breach of c o n t r a c t , f r a u d u l e n t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , f r a u d i n the i n d u c e m e n t , f r a u d u l e n t s u p p r e s s i o n , n e g l i g e n c e and w a n t o n n e s s , " n e g l i g e n t procurement of insurance stemming f r o m S a f e t y N e t ' s SafetyNet it purchase of the s e e k s t o have r e f u n d e d a l l e g e s were c o v e r a g e , " and excessive. 4 subject conversion policies. t o i t premiums i t p a i d that 1120337 On September 12, 2012, the f i l e d a j o i n t motion requesting t h e Lee other C i r c u i t Court. things, records insurance-company the t r a n s f e r of t h i s a c t i o n t o T h e i r m o t i o n was 2 parties from the s u p p o r t e d by, Alabama S e c r e t a r y o f f i c e ; the a f f i d a v i t of Frank K u s h l e r , of among State's Patriot's senior vice p r e s i d e n t ; and t h e a f f i d a v i t s o f P a u l H a r p e r and Randy Thomas. The Secretary f o r m e d on in of State's J a n u a r y 16, Montgomery, and formation in testified in his nor a resident Guarantee neither an 2001, that September b o t h G u a r a n t e e and 2004 and that or received SafetyNet i t s articles 2006. oversees to do County; business and e-mails from any operations that, office i t has County. never sent of for although i n Alabama, employee of Kushler a r e g i s t e r e d agent i n D a l l a s t h a t he was address t h a t P a t r i o t has n e i t h e r an Harper t e s t i f i e d i n h i s a f f i d a v i t to amended November he in Dallas is registered that a registered office SafetyNet Patriot; nor reflect with affidavit agent office records 3 e-mails SafetyNet I n the a l t e r n a t i v e , the insurance-company p a r t i e s sought t o have t h e a c t i o n t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t Court. 2 K u s h l e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t P a t r i o t was n o t an i n s u r a n c e company and t o o k no a c t i o n s i n t h e m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g to SafetyNet's claims. 3 5 1120337 regarding the subject telephone calls subject policies, t o any e m p l o y e e policies, and t h a t someone f r o m S a f e t y N e t that he d i d n o t p l a c e of SafetyNet the only regarding meeting regarding he h a d any the "with the placement or renewal of the [ s u b j e c t p o l i c i e s ] r e f e r e n c e d i n t h e l a w s u i t took p l a c e a t the office testified of SafetyNet i n Montgomery, i n his affidavit employee o f S a f e t y N e t that Alabama." Thomas any e - m a i l s he s e n t t o any r e g a r d i n g t h e s u b j e c t p o l i c i e s were s e n t f r o m Montgomery a n d t h a t he d i d n o t have any m e e t i n g s w i t h any employee from S a f e t y N e t the subject concerning the placement or renewal of policies. SafetyNet filed a response in opposition insurance-company p a r t i e s ' motion t o t r a n s f e r . to the The r e s p o n s e was s u p p o r t e d b y , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e 2010-2011 policy; the insurance binder f o r t h e 2009-2010 p o l i c y i s s u e d b y t h e b r o k e r a g e f i r m d a t e d A u g u s t 25, 2009; a n d Wheatley's affidavit. SafetyNet's application states i t s m a i l i n g a d d r e s s as " L y n W h e a t l e y , 80 M e l B a i l e y D r i v e , AL 36761." Systems, The b i n d e r s t a t e s as t h e i n s u r e d " S a f e t y N e t L L C , A t t n : Mr. L y n W h e a t l e y , 6 80 M e l B a i l e y Minter, Youth Drive, 1120337 M i n t e r , AL 36761." In his affidavit, Wheatley t e s t i f i e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , as f o l l o w s : " 2 . S a f e t y N e t Y o u t h S y s t e m s , L L C was f o r m e d i n 2001. A t t h a t t i m e S a f e t y N e t d i d n o t m a i n t a i n any p r o p e r t y o r o f f i c e s b u t was s i m p l y i n t h e ' f o r m a t i o n s t a g e s . ' I t h a s b e e n b r o u g h t t o my a t t e n t i o n t h a t the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e website m a i n t a i n s a l i s t i n g i n d i c a t i n g t h a t S a f e t y N e t Y o u t h S y s t e m s , L L C h a s an a d d r e s s o f Montgomery, A l a b a m a . While SafetyNet does m a i n t a i n facilities i n Montgomery C o u n t y , S a f e t y N e t ' s p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e i n Alabama i s l o c a t e d i n M i n t e r , D a l l a s County, Alabama. I n 2009 a t t h e time S a f e t y N e t purchased policies and i n s u r a n c e through Guarantee Insurance Company, Patriot N a t i o n a l I n s u r a n c e Group, Randy Thomas a n d P a u l Harper, SafetyNet's p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e i n the s t a t e of A l a b a m a was l o c a t e d i n M i n t e r , D a l l a s County, Alabama. "3. While SafetyNet maintains f a c i l i t i e s in counties other than Dallas County, Alabama, SafetyNet's largest facility and i t s ' [ s i c ] corporate o f f i c e s are l o c a t e d i n Minter, Dallas County, Alabama. In a d d i t i o n , a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f r e p o r t t o S a f e t y N e t ' s M i n t e r , D a l l a s County, Alabama o f f i c e s . S a f e t y N e t ' s b u s i n e s s manager, human r e s o u r c e s d i r e c t o r a n d a c c o u n t s p a y a b l e c l e r k a l l maintain o f f i c e s at the SafetyNet principal office in Minter, Dallas County, Alabama. Additionally, the address maintained with the I n t e r n a l Revenue S e r v i c e as w e l l as t h e A l a b a m a Department o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s and a l l o t h e r Alabama S t a t e A g e n c i e s i s SafetyNet's corporate o f f i c e l o c a t e d i n M i n t e r , D a l l a s County, Alabama." The insurance-company SafetyNet's response. That parties reply 7 was filed a reply to supported b y , among 1120337 other t h i n g s , a second a f f i d a v i t from K u s h l e r . a f f i d a v i t , Kushler In h i s second s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , as follows: " 3 . P a t r i o t and G u a r a n t e e do n o t do b u s i n e s s by a g e n t i n D a l l a s C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , and d i d n o t do b u s i n e s s by a g e n t i n D a l l a s C o u n t y a t t h e t i m e o f filing of t h i s lawsuit i n 2012. Patriot and G u a r a n t e e do n o t c u r r e n t l y i n s u r e any l o c a t i o n s i n D a l l a s C o u n t y and d i d n o t i n s u r e any l o c a t i o n s i n D a l l a s County at the time of f i l i n g of t h i s s u i t i n 2012. P a t r i o t and G u a r a n t e e do not have any employees or agents p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t i n D a l l a s C o u n t y and d i d n o t have any e m p l o y e e s o r a g e n t s p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t i n D a l l a s County at the time of f i l i n g o f t h i s s u i t i n 2012. "4. The p o l i c i e s p r e v i o u s l y i s s u e d by G u a r a n t e e t o S a f e t y N e t Y o u t h S y s t e m s , LLC ( n o n e o f w h i c h a r e c u r r e n t ) c o v e r e d two l o c a t i o n s i n Montgomery C o u n t y , A l a b a m a and one l o c a t i o n i n M i n t e r , A l a b a m a . I am unaware o f any o t h e r p o l i c i e s h a v i n g b e e n i s s u e d by P a t r i o t o r G u a r a n t e e t h a t c o v e r e d any l o c a t i o n f o r any o t h e r i n s u r e d i n D a l l a s C o u n t y . " The trial court denied the m o t i o n f o r a change o f v e n u e . then filed supporting what they The called that motion w i t h insurance-company the a insurance-company p a r t i e s "motion to reconsider," a f f i d a v i t of E v i e P e r r y , premium a u d i t m a r k e t manager f o r G u a r a n t e e and trial court company d e n i e d the motion to r e c o n s i d e r . parties mandamus w i t h then filed t h i s C o u r t ; we their petition Patriot. The for o r d e r e d a n s w e r and 8 parties' the The insurancea writ briefs. of 1120337 II. "'The question Standard o f Review of proper venue f o r an 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 . ' " Fabrication, the I n c . , 859 So. 2d 1089, 1091 ( A l a . 2002) ( q u o t i n g a t t h e o u t s e t , t h e n , upon m o t i o n c o u r t must t r a n s f e r proper. is Ex p a r t e P i k e Ex p a r t e P r a t t , 815 So. 2d 532, 534 ( A l a . 2001) ) . improper action Pike t h e case Fabrication, defendant's motion 859 I f venue i s of the defendant, t o a c o u r t where v e n u e i s So. 2d a t 1 0 9 1 . I f the i s denied, " ' [ t ] h e p r o p e r method f o r o b t a i n i n g r e v i e w o f a d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f o r a change o f venue i n a c i v i l a c t i o n i s t o p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus.' Ex 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 886, 888 ( A l a . 2000) . '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 where 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 order sought; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e respondent t o p e r f o r m , accompanied by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (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 Integon Corp., 672 So. 2d 497, 499 ( A l a . 1995) . Moreover, our review i s l i m i t e d t o those f a c t s t h a t were b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Ex p a r t e N a t i o n a l S e c . I n s . Co., 727 So. 2d 788, 789 ( A l a . 1998). "'The b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g i m p r o p e r venue i s on t h e p a r t y r a i s i n g t h e i s s u e a n d on r e v i e w o f an o r d e r t r a n s f e r r i n g or refusing to t r a n s f e r , a w r i t of mandamus w i l l n o t be g r a n t e d u n l e s s t h e r e i s a c l e a r s h o w i n g o f e r r o r on t h e p a r t o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e . ' Ex p a r t e F i n a n c e A m e r i c a C o r p . , 507 So. 2d 458, 460 (Ala. 1987). I n a d d i t i o n , t h i s Court i s bound by 9 1120337 t h e r e c o r d , and i t c a n n o t c o n s i d e r a s t a t e m e n t o r e v i d e n c e i n a p a r t y ' s b r i e f t h a t was n o t b e f o r e t h e t r i a l court. Ex p a r t e A m e r i c a n R e s . I n s . Co., 663 So. 2d 932, 936 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . " Pike F a b r i c a t i o n , 859 So. 2d a t 1091. If the insurance-company s h o w i n g t h a t venue then shifted E a s t Alabama Med. County. of C t r . , 109 So. 3d 1114 this a prima facie improper, the burden to SafetyNet to rebut that insurance-company circumstances made i n D a l l a s C o u n t y was III. The parties showing. Ex parte ( A l a . 2012). Analysis parties case, venue They r e l y on §§ 6-3-2 argue is that, improper under in the Dallas and 6-3-7, A l a . Code 1975, t h e A l a b a m a s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t d e f i n e p r o p e r venue i n t h i s c a s e , and on § 6-3-21.1, A l a . Code 1975, A l a b a m a ' s forum conveniens s t a t u t e . i n Dallas County S a f e t y N e t c o u n t e r s t h a t venue i s p r o p e r p u r s u a n t t o t h e venue non s t a t u t e s because, i t contends, i t s p r i n c i p a l place of b u s i n e s s i s l o c a t e d i n D a l l a s C o u n t y and t h e i n s u r a n c e - c o m p a n y p a r t i e s do b u s i n e s s by a g e n t in Dallas County. A. We first Section address 6-3-2, A l a . Code whether venue in 1975 Dallas i m p r o p e r as t o Thomas and H a r p e r u n d e r § 6-3-2. 10 County Section is 6-3-2 1120337 g o v e r n s venue 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 d e f e n d a n t s . statute reads, i n p e r t i n e n t That part: "(a) I n p r o c e e d i n g s o f a l e g a l individuals: nature against " "(2) A l l a c t i o n s on c o n t r a c t s , e x c e p t as may be o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d , must be commenced i n t h e c o u n t y i n w h i c h the d e f e n d a n t o r one o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s r e s i d e s i f s u c h d e f e n d a n t has w i t h i n t h e s t a t e a permanent r e s i d e n c e . "(3) A l l o t h e r p e r s o n a l a c t i o n s , i f t h e d e f e n d a n t o r one o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s has w i t h i n t h e s t a t e a p e r m a n e n t r e s i d e n c e , may be commenced i n the county of such r e s i d e n c e or i n the county i n which the a c t o r o m i s s i o n c o m p l a i n e d o f may have b e e n done o r may have o c c u r r e d . " The County insurance-company i s i m p r o p e r as t o Thomas and H a r p e r b e c a u s e a resident Lee p a r t i e s a r g u e t h a t venue i n D a l l a s County. resides o f Montgomery C o u n t y and H a r p e r Thomas s u b m i t t e d an i s a resident affidavit stating that of he Harper s u b m i t t e d an a f f i d a v i t s t a t i n g t h a t he r e s i d e s i n Lee C o u n t y . S a f e t y N e t s u b m i t t e d no evidence 2(a)(2) i n Montgomery C o u n t y ; Thomas i s to contradict clearly either provides that affidavit. a Because § 6-3- breach-of-contract claim a g a i n s t an i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t must be b r o u g h t i n a c o u n t y i n w h i c h "one o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s r e s i d e s , " venue i n D a l l a s 11 County 1120337 as t o t h e b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t is claim against Thomas a n d H a r p e r improper pursuant t o § 6-3-2(a)(2). An action against an i n d i v i d u a l defendant may also be brought i n the county " i n which the a c t or omission complained of" occurred i f the action i s a personal a c t i o n other a c t i o n on a c o n t r a c t , p u r s u a n t t o § 6 - 3 - 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) . the evidence b e f o r e from SafetyNet" the t r i a l t h a n an According to c o u r t , H a r p e r met w i t h "someone i n Montgomery County before the subject p o l i c i e s were i s s u e d , a n d Thomas s e n t any e - m a i l s d i r e c t e d t o SafetyNet from Montgomery materials before that office The us c o n c e r n i n g t h e s u b j e c t applications, p a p e r w o r k were County. binders, a l l issued premium either from documents policies notices, company SafetyNet parties argues directed that indicate and the brokerage i n Montgomery o r f r o m G u a r a n t e e ' s o f f i c e Nevertheless, i n the because communications the other firm's i n Florida. insurance- to Dallas County, b e c a u s e t h e s u b j e c t p o l i c i e s "were t o be d e l i v e r e d " i n D a l l a s County, 4 and because t h e insurance-company p a r t i e s c o l l e c t e d We n o t e t h a t a l t h o u g h S a f e t y N e t s t a t e s i n i t s b r i e f t o t h i s C o u r t t h a t t h e s u b j e c t p o l i c i e s "were t o be d e l i v e r e d " i n D a l l a s C o u n t y , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t o t h a t e f f e c t i n t h e materials before us. 4 12 1120337 premiums f r o m D a l l a s C o u n t y , venue i s p r o p e r i n D a l l a s County. We d i s a g r e e . I n Ex p a r t e S i e r r a D e v e l o p m e n t , I n c . , 652 So. 2d 2 5 1 , 253 ( A l a . 1994), t h i s Court h e l d t h a t "[a] c l a i m a l l e g i n g f r a u d o r conversion i s a 'personal action' w i t h i n the exception stated in" § 6-3-2(a)(3). following SafetyNet's personal-injury misrepresentation, fraud in complaint claims: the alleges the fraudulent inducement, fraudulent s u p p r e s s i o n , n e g l i g e n c e and wantonness, " n e g l i g e n t procurement of i n s u r a n c e coverage," and c o n v e r s i o n . Analyzing the issue o f p r o p e r venue p u r s u a n t t o § 6 - 3 - 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) 840 So. 2d 885, 890 Legislature ( A l a . 2002), h a s made t h e s i t e a p p r o p r i a t e venue." this i n Ex p a r t e Windom, Court noted t h a t "the of the a c t complained The C o u r t f u r t h e r of the stated: " S i g n i f i c a n t l y , i n venue c a s e s , t h e w o r d i n j u r y commonly r e f e r s n o t t o t h e damage a l l e g e d l y s u f f e r e d by the p l a i n t i f f , but to the wrongful a c t or o m i s s i o n a l l e g e d l y committed by t h e defendant; t h e w o r d i n j u r y , as u s e d i n t h e s e c a s e s , d e r i v e s f r o m the L a t i n word i n j u r i a , meaning t h e w r o n g f u l a c t o r omission. Ex p a r t e W i g i n t o n , 743 So. 2d 1071, 1074 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ; Ex p a r t e S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , N.A., 619 So. 2d 1356, 1358 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; a n d A g e - H e r a l d P u b l ' g Co. v . H u d d l e s t o n , 207 A l a . 40, 44, 92 So. 193, 197 ( 1 9 2 1 ) . Thus, e v e n t h o s e venue c a s e s t h a t h o l d t h a t venue o f a p e r s o n a l a c t i o n l i e s i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e i n j u r y o c c u r r e d commonly mean t h e c o u n t y where t h e d e f e n d a n t c o m m i t t e d t h e a l l e g e d wrongdoing. I d . " 13 1120337 Windom, 840 So. 2d a t 889 n.2. injury claims before u s , Montgomery C o u n t y which "the a c t or occurred." against Harper and Thomas, from personal- the evidence i s t h e o n l y Alabama omission Therefore, As t o S a f e t y N e t ' s complained venue i n Dallas claims i s improper pursuant t o § of county i n ... County may have as t o those 6-3-2(a)(3). We c o n c l u d e t h a t , u n d e r § 6-3-2, venue as t o SafetyNet's c l a i m s a g a i n s t Thomas a n d H a r p e r i s i m p r o p e r i n D a l l a s C o u n t y . B. S e c t i o n 6-3-7, A l a . Code 1975 We next address whether venue i n Dallas County i m p r o p e r as t o G u a r d i a n a n d P a t r i o t u n d e r § 6-3-7. 6-3-7 g o v e r n s venue o f a c t i o n s a g a i n s t c o r p o r a t e That s t a t u t e reads, Section defendants. i n pertinent part: "(a) A l l c i v i l a c t i o n s a g a i n s t c o r p o r a t i o n s be b r o u g h t i n any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c o u n t i e s : "(1) In the county i n which a s u b s t a n t i a l part of the events or omissions g i v i n g r i s e to the claim occurred, or a s u b s t a n t i a l part of r e a l property that i s the s u b j e c t of the a c t i o n i s s i t u a t e d ; o r " . . . "(3) In the county i n which the p l a i n t i f f resided, or i f the p l a i n t i f f i s an e n t i t y o t h e r t h a n an i n d i v i d u a l , where the p l a i n t i f f had i t s p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e i n t h i s s t a t e , a t the time of the a c c r u a l of the cause o f a c t i o n , i f such c o r p o r a t i o n 14 is may 1120337 does b u s i n e s s b y a g e n t i n t h e c o u n t y o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s residence " We proper first c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r venue u n d e r § 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) i s i n Dallas County. The a n a l y s i s used to determine p r o p e r venue p u r s u a n t t o § 6-3-7 i s t h e same as t h e a n a l y s i s of proper venue pursuant to § 6-3-2. As t o SafetyNet's a l l e g a t i o n s o f f r a u d , n e g l i g e n c e , wantonness, and c o n v e r s i o n , we n o t e that this Court h e l d i n Ex p a r t e P i k e v i l l e C l u b , 844 So. 2d 1186 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , injury alleged claim i s proper wrongful where Country t h a t venue o f a p e r s o n a l - the defendant a c t , n o t where i t s e f f e c t committed was f e l t the by t h e plaintiff. " ' I n A g e - H e r a l d P u b l i s h i n g Co. v. H u d d l e s t o n , 207 Ala. 40, 92 So. 193 ( 1 9 2 2 ) , a l i b e l a c t i o n , t h i s Court established that t h e term "injury" for p u r p o s e s o f § 6-3-7 r e f e r s t o t h e w r o n g f u l a c t o r omission of the corporate defendant, not t o the resulting damage to the p l a i n t i f f , and thus d e t e r m i n e d t h a t v e n u e f o r s u c h an i n j u r y i s p r o p e r where a w r o n g f u l a c t was c o m m i t t e d , n o t where t h e damage r e s u l t e d '" 844 So. 2d a t 1188-89 T u s c a l o o s a County, In SouthTrust ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f N.A., 619 So. 2d 1356, 1358 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ) . Bank, w h i c h involved fraud allegations, this C o u r t , i n t e r p r e t i n g an e a r l i e r v e r s i o n o f § 6-3-7, h e l d t h a t because SouthTrust misrepresentations Bank had i n Tuscaloosa 15 made County, the where alleged i t h a d made 1120337 telephone calls plaintiff's not in and alleged the 74 So. omissions acts or SafetyNet's 943 rise omissions to the plaintiff, the plaintiff ( A l a . 2011) to the of the claim" refers personal-injury claims County, "events t o the or wrongful defendant). against those F e e d & Seed, (the phrase corporate the received a l s o Ex p a r t e T h o m a s v i l l e 940, giving mail occurred i n Tuscaloosa where See 3d sent injuries county communications. Inc., had As to Guarantee and P i o n e e r , i t i s c l e a r t h a t "a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t o f t h e e v e n t s or o m i s s i o n s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e c l a i m [ s ] " o c c u r r e d i n Montgomery C o u n t y , n o t D a l l a s C o u n t y ; venue o f t h o s e c l a i m s i s t h e r e f o r e improper As i n D a l l a s County pursuant to maintains SafetyNet's that the to § 6-3-7(a)(1). breach-of-contract events or omissions claim, giving SafetyNet rise b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m o c c u r r e d i n D a l l a s County. relies on V u l c a n M a t e r i a l s Co. Ass'n, 985 So. stated that, claim, 2d 376, 382 i n which Guaranty this Court "under the law of Alabama, a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t like the claim between [the plaintiff] i n s u r a n c e c o m p a n i e s , a r i s e s where t h e c o n t r a c t was SafetyNet then upon the SafetyNet v. A l a b a m a I n s u r a n c e ( A l a . 2007), to and breached." argues: "SafetyNet's b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m i s based [the insurance-company p a r t i e s ' ] f a i l u r e to 16 its 1120337 t e n d e r t h e p e r f o r m a n c e r e q u i r e d by t h e i n s u r a n c e contracts. This f a i l e d performance i n c l u d e d not performing a proper r e t r o a c t i v e a u d i t of SafetyNet's b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s which are l o c a t e d i n D a l l a s County, and f a i l i n g t o t e n d e r t h e c o n t r a c t u a l l y r e q u i r e d r e f u n d o f premiums t o S a f e t y N e t ' s D a l l a s County corporate o f f i c e . '"A b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t o c c u r s where t h e c o n t r a c t i s t o be p e r f o r m e d . " ' Vulcan M a t e r i a l s Co., 985 So. 2d a t 382 ( q u o t i n g S t r i c k l a n d v. T r i o n Group, I n c . , 463 F. Supp. 2d 921, 925 (E.D. Wis. 2 0 0 6 ) ) . [The i n s u r a n c e - c o m p a n y p a r t i e s ] a d m i t here t h a t 'no employee of P a t r i o t or Guarantee e n t e r e d D a l l a s C o u n t y f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f any a u d i t . ' P e t i t i o n a t pp. 11-12. S a f e t y N e t a g r e e s , and t h a t i s a primary b a s i s of i t s b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m . The performance which [the insurance-company p a r t i e s ] f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e was t o be t e n d e r e d i n D a l l a s C o u n t y , and, t h e r e f o r e , D a l l a s C o u n t y i s a p r o p e r venue u n d e r § 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) " SafetyNet's b r i e f , a t 23-24 (footnote omitted). SafetyNet's argument i s p r e m i s e d on i t s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t s a t issue i n this D a l l a s County. Count c o n t r a c t as 1 case--the subject We of policies--were breached i n disagree. SafetyNet's complaint alleges breach follows: "19. As s e t f o r t h a b o v e , [ S a f e t y N e t ] e n t e r e d i n t o an i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t w i t h D e f e n d a n t G u a r a n t e e I n s u r a n c e Company. However, D e f e n d a n t G u a r a n t e e I n s u r a n c e Company and i t s a g e n t s i m p r o p e r l y demanded premiums w e l l i n e x c e s s o f t h o s e a p p r o p r i a t e u n d e r the policy. Furthermore, Defendant Guarantee I n s u r a n c e Company s o u g h t premiums i n e x c e s s o f t h o s e d i s c l o s e d a t t h e t i m e o f s a l e and c o n t r a r y t o t h e representations which formed the b a s i s of the c o n t r a c t u a l a g r e e m e n t by and b e t w e e n S a f e t y N e t and G u a r a n t e e I n s u r a n c e Company. 17 of 1120337 "20. D e f e n d a n t [ ] G u a r a n t e e I n s u r a n c e Company and i t s a g e n t s and e m p l o y e e s have b r e a c h e d t h e a g r e e m e n t and c o n t r a c t by f a i l i n g and r e f u s i n g t o a b i d e by t h e t e r m s and c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e p o l i c y i n c l u d i n g t h o s e g o v e r n i n g t h e premiums t o be c h a r g e d and t h e manner by w h i c h S a f e t y N e t has [ s i c ] t o r e c e i v e a r e f u n d . "21. [The insurance-company parties] have breached the contract by, among o t h e r things, r e f u s i n g t o a b i d e by t h e a p p r o p r i a t e t e r m s o f t h e p o l i c y with respect t o premium and r e f u s i n g to a p p r o p r i a t e l y r e f u n d premium and o t h e r w i s e e x a c t i n g i m p r o p e r premiums i n a manner w h i c h i s u n l a w f u l and inconsistent with the policy and disclosures provided to SafetyNet." All the acts or complaint would Guarantee and have form the simply SafetyNet (or not decisions basis i s nothing of County. SafetyNet's subject SafetyNet County c o n c e r n i n g the i n connection performance under the Dallas by performed been alleged P a t r i o t i n Montgomery F l o r i d a , where t h e that omissions in its performed) by agent subject or "inaction" alone on in policies c l a i m were made. There w i t h Guarantee's or P a t r i o t ' s policies references t h a t was an audit performed i n that i t says G u a r a n t e e s h o u l d have p e r f o r m e d i n D a l l a s C o u n t y b u t d i d This by the part of Guarantee not. is not s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w us t o c o n c l u d e t h a t "a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of the events or o m i s s i o n s 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 " in D a l l a s County. § 6-3-7(a)(1) (emphasis added). as t o S a f e t y N e t ' s b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t 18 claim against Therefore, Guarantee 1120337 and P a t r i o t , venue i s i m p r o p e r i n D a l l a s C o u n t y p u r s u a n t to § 6-3-7(a)(1). We next proper prong consider whether i n D a l l a s County. venue u n d e r S e c t i o n 6-3-7 analysis i f a plaintiff filed a complaint. plaintiff, other Because § 6-3-7(a)(3) (a)(3) r e q u i r e s a than an SafetyNet two- individual is v e n u e i n D a l l a s C o u n t y w o u l d be is a has corporate proper against a c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t o n l y (1) i f S a f e t y N e t ' s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f business was and i f the (2) Dallas i n D a l l a s County at the time sued the County, corporation in county the a c t i o n d i d business which by SafetyNet " r e s i d e s " o r has i t s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s . devote considerable whether attention in their SafetyNet's principle place briefs of accrued agent claims in i t The p a r t i e s to business the issue was in Montgomery C o u n t y o r i n D a l l a s C o u n t y a t t h e t i m e t h e c a u s e o f action accrued. because SafetyNet 3-7(a)(3) need not address that issue, however, has not proven the second prong of the § 6- analysis. According Patriot We does to Kushler's a f f i d a v i t s , n e i t h e r Guarantee business by In his s e c o n d a f f i d a v i t , K u s h l e r p r o v i d e d more d e t a i l c o n c e r n i n g the insurance-company and parties' agent in Dallas contention 19 County. nor that Guarantee 1120337 Patriot do County. not perform any b u s i n e s s In a d d i t i o n to s t a t i n g that Patriot has even had any employees present i n Dallas County, K u s h l e r Patriot had not issued covering any l o c a t i o n such p o l i c i e s filed the that i n 2012. subject any functions neither i n Dallas Guarantee nor or agents stated that policies physically Guarantee and currently in force i n D a l l a s County and had n o t i s s u e d any were i n f o r c e Moreover, policies, a t the time t h i s Kushler t e s t i f i e d which covered Montgomery C o u n t y a n d one l o c a t i o n that two c a s e was other locations than in i n D a l l a s C o u n t y f r o m 2009 t o 2 0 1 1 , he was n o t aware o f any o t h e r p o l i c i e s h a v i n g b e e n i s s u e d by Guarantee o r P a t r i o t t h a t c o v e r e d any o t h e r in Dallas sufficient County. Because t o make a p r i m a f a c i e Patriot do thereby shifted Kushler's affidavits showing t h a t n o t do b u s i n e s s i n D a l l a s t o SafetyNet t o prove insured Guarantee and County, that were t h e burden Guarantee and P a t r i o t do i n f a c t c o n d u c t b u s i n e s s b y a g e n t i n D a l l a s C o u n t y . Thomasville Citizens In Feed State & Seed, 74 So. 3d a t 943 ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e Bank, 989 So. 2d 507, 508 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ) . i t s answer i n response t o t h e mandamus petition, SafetyNet contends t h a t , because the s u b j e c t p o l i c i e s p r o v i d e d workers' compensation insurance covering i n j u r i e s t o SafetyNet 20 1120337 employees w o r k i n g i n D a l l a s County, Guarantee and P a t r i o t d i d business in i n D a l l a s County. the materials because office before the o r i g i n a l i n Dallas notices, collected business from insurance Dallas as were County, by agent i n D a l l a s also prospectus statements, I n Ex p a r t e E l l i o t t , Court us, SafetyNet County, a n d premium R e l y i n g on t h e i n s u r a n c e documents contends was sent the a p p l i c a t i o n s , and because Guarantee to i t s billing premiums and that were Patriot d i d County. 80 So. 3d 908, 912 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) , this held: "To e s t a b l i s h t h a t a c o r p o r a t i o n does b u s i n e s s i n a p a r t i c u l a r county f o r purposes o f venue, p a s t i s o l a t e d transactions are inconclusive. Ex p a r t e H a r r i n g t o n M f g . Co., 414 So. 2d 74 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . A c o r p o r a t i o n does b u s i n e s s i n a c o u n t y f o r p u r p o s e s o f § 6-3-7 i f i t p e r f o r m s w i t h some r e g u l a r i t y i n t h a t c o u n t y some o f t h e b u s i n e s s f u n c t i o n s f o r w h i c h t h e c o r p o r a t i o n was c r e a t e d . Ex p a r t e S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f T u s c a l o o s a C n t y . , N.A., 619 So. 2d 1356, 1358 (Ala. 1993)." (Emphasis added.) T h i s C o u r t has a l s o h e l d t h a t "'"not e v e r y a c t done w i t h i n t h e c o r p o r a t e will constitute statute."'" (Ala. 81 doing Ex p a r t e powers o f a f o r e i g n business within Greenetrack, corporation t h e meaning of the I n c . , 25 So. 3d 449, 453 2009) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e S c o t t B r i d g e Co., 834 So. 2d 79, (Ala. 2002), quoting i n turn Hosp., I n c . , 538 So. 2d 787, 790 21 Ex p a r t e Charter (Ala. 1989)). Retreat Considering 1120337 the e v i d e n c e b e f o r e u s , we indicate that Guarantee f i n d very l i t t l e , or County. The in connection P a t r i o t d i d business i n corporate regularity functions with the they Patriot County performed i n the past, establish that some such Guarantee isolated a or P a t r i o t was D a l l a s C o u n t y f o r venue p u r p o s e s . burden with policies were Even i f Guarantee transaction transaction Dallas performed subject a c t i o n s t a k e n i n Montgomery o r i n F l o r i d a . or i f anything, to in Dallas is insufficient doing business i n S a f e t y N e t has n o t met i t s t o r e b u t the insurance-company p a r t i e s ' showing Guarantee and D a l l a s County. to P a t r i o t d i d n o t c o n d u c t b u s i n e s s by that agent i n Venue, t h e r e f o r e , i s i m p r o p e r i n D a l l a s County as t o G u a r a n t e e o r P a t r i o t p u r s u a n t t o § 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) . We claims c o n c l u d e t h a t , u n d e r § 6-3-7, venue as t o S a f e t y N e t ' s against Guarantee and P a t r i o t i s improper i n Dallas County. C. S e c t i o n 6-3-21.1, A l a . Code 1975 The p a r t i e s d e v o t e a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n o f t h e i r b r i e f s to t h e argument that both the i n t e r e s t of justice and the c o n v e n i e n c e o f t h e p a r t i e s and w i t n e s s e s d i c t a t e t h e t r a n s f e r of this case from Dallas c o d i f i e s the d o c t r i n e County. Section 6-3-21.1, which o f f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s , p r o v i d e s when 22 1120337 an action must be that doctrine. transferred t o a n o t h e r venue p u r s u a n t to T h i s C o u r t has h e l d , h o w e v e r , t h a t § 6-3-21.1 "has a f i e l d o f o p e r a t i o n o n l y where an a c t i o n i s commenced i n a c o u n t y i n w h i c h venue i s a p p r o p r i a t e . " Mut. L i f e I n s . Co., added). 663 So. 2d 952, 956 Ex p a r t e New ( A l a . 1995) England (emphasis I n Ex p a r t e M i l l e r , H a m i l t o n , S n i d e r & Odom, LLC, So. 2d 12, 14 ( A l a . 2007), t h i s Court 978 stated: "The doctrine of forum non conveniens i s applicable only '[w]ith respect to c i v i l actions filed i n an a p p r o p r i a t e v e n u e . ' § 6-3-21.1(a) (emphasis added). This statutory language is consistent with 'the f u n d a m e n t a l p r e m i s e o f a l l t r a n s f e r s f o r c o n v e n i e n c e - - i . e . , t h a t venue i s good at the time of f i l i n g , but t h a t a t r a n s f e r t o a b e t t e r venue i s , o r has become, a p p r o p r i a t e . ' Ex p a r t e W i l s o n , 854 So. 2d [1106,] 1112 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ] (emphasis added)." B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t venue i s n o t p r o p e r i n D a l l a s the doctrine of forum non conveniens does t h e r e f o r e , we do n o t a d d r e s s t h e p a r t i e s ' a r g u m e n t s County, not apply; as t o t h i s issue. IV. Conclusion We h o l d t h a t when S a f e t y N e t commenced t h i s a c t i o n , was improper in Dallas County; therefore, venue the i n s u r a n c e - company p a r t i e s have d e m o n s t r a t e d a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e relief they seek. As the p r e v a i l i n g p a r t i e s t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n f o r i m p r o p e r venue, 23 the on a m o t i o n to insurance-company 1120337 p a r t i e s are e n t i t l e d to s e l e c t the a p p r o p r i a t e county to which the a c t i o n t h a n one Ala. may R. must be county. transferred Windom, 840 C i v . P. Moreover, brought be when venue i s p r o p e r against a So. 2d a t 890; i t i s well domestic i n more Rule 82(d)(3), s e t t l e d t h a t an action corporation " i n a venue o t h e r w i s e i m p r o p e r as t o i t , so l o n g as venue i s p r o p e r as t o one or more of Trailer Co., i t s joint 854 So. 2d defendants." 71, 84 Ex parte ( A l a . 2003) . In t h i s venue i s p r o p e r i n Lee C o u n t y as t o H a r p e r u n d e r § and (3) resides. parties County. because Lee County In t h e i r motion requested that T h e r e f o r e , we i s the county to transfer, this action grant the the be i n which action insurance-company insurance-company PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. B o l i n , and W i s e , J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t . Moore, C . J . , to Lee parties' court to parties' motion order t r a n s f e r r i n g SafetyNet's t o t h e Lee C i r c u i t C o u r t . Stuart, Harper transferred vacate i t s order denying the insurance-company case, 6-3-2(a)(2) p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus and d i r e c t t h e t r i a l t o t r a n s f e r and t o e n t e r a new Fontaine and M u r d o c k , J . , 24 dissent. 1120337 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e ( d i s s e n t i n g ) . I respectfully dissent. First, quotations I q u e s t i o n t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e main f r o m Ex p a r t e Windom, 840 So. 2d 885, 889 n.2 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , a n d Ex p a r t e 1188-89 meaning opinion's P i k e v i l l e Country Club, ( A l a . 2002), of the term predecessor as "injury" of current t e r m no l o n g e r insofar those cases i n venue § 6-3-7(a)(1), 844 So. 2d 1186, cases discuss the applying the A l a Code 1975. i s found i n § 6-3-7(a)(1). That See A c t 99-249, A l a . A c t s . 1999. Further, discussions those c a s e s a r e q u o t e d as p a r t o f two of the proper a s s e r t e d by S a f e t y N e t venue of the various separate tort claims Y o u t h S y s t e m s , LLC ( " S a f e t y N e t " ) . a p p e a r s t o me, h o w e v e r , t h a t S a f e t y N e t It could bring this action i n D a l l a s County because D a l l a s County i s a p r o p e r venue f o r its contract claims § 6-3-7(a)(1) against the corporate which a substantial part R. C i v . P. (1) [ i ] n t h e c o u n t y of the events g i v i n g r i s e to the claim occurred Ala. See ( " A l l c i v i l a c t i o n s a g a i n s t c o r p o r a t i o n s may be b r o u g h t i n any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c o u n t i e s : in defendants. were omissions " ) ; see a l s o Rule 8 2 ( c ) , ("Where s e v e r a l c l a i m s o r p a r t i e s have b e e n j o i n e d , t h e s u i t may be b r o u g h t i n any c o u n t y i n w h i c h any one 25 1120337 of the c l a i m s c o u l d p r o p e r l y have b e e n b r o u g h t . " ) . regard, I agree w i t h the f o l l o w i n g argument by In this SafetyNet: "Safetynet's breach-of-contract c l a i m i s based upon D e f e n d a n t s ' f a i l u r e t o t e n d e r t h e p e r f o r m a n c e r e q u i r e d by t h e i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t s . This f a i l e d performance included not performing a proper r e t r o a c t i v e a u d i t of S a f e t y n e t ' s b u s i n e s s records w h i c h a r e l o c a t e d i n D a l l a s C o u n t y , and f a i l i n g t o t e n d e r t h e c o n t r a c t u a l l y r e q u i r e d r e f u n d o f premiums to S a f e t y n e t ' s D a l l a s County c o r p o r a t e o f f i c e . '"A b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t o c c u r s where t h e c o n t r a c t i s t o be p e r f o r m e d . " ' V u l c a n M a t e r i a l s Co. [v. A l a b a m a I n s . G u a r . A s s ' n ] , 985 So. 2d [376] a t 382 [(Ala. 2 0 0 7 ) ] ( q u o t i n g S t r i c k l a n d v. T r i o n G r o u p , I n c . , 463 F.Supp.2d 921, 925 (E.D. Wis. 2 0 0 6 ) ) . " SafetyNet's brief, Finally, p. 23. I d i s a g r e e w i t h the main o p i n i o n ' s of the phrase "events application or omissions g i v i n g r i s e to the c l a i m . " "For reasons I p r e v i o u s l y have e x p r e s s e d , I b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g s i n Ex p a r t e V o l v o Trucks North America, I n c . , 954 So. 2d 583, 587 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) , and i n Ex p a r t e S u z u k i M o b i l e , I n c . , 940 So. 2d 1007, 1010 ( A l a . 2006), c o n s t r u i n g the phrase 'events or omissions g i v i n g r i s e to the c l a i m ' i n A l a . Code 1975, § 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) , as m e a n i n g 'the a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s o f t h e c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t ' is incorrect. See Ex p a r t e F o r d M o t o r Co., 73 So. 3d 597, 605-06 (Ala. 2011) (Murdock, J., d i s s e n t i n g ) ; Ex p a r t e F o r d M o t o r Co., 47 So. 3d 234, 241 ( A l a . 2010) (Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e result)." Ex p a r t e T h o m a s v i l l e F e e d & Seed, I n c . , 74 So. (Ala. 2011) (Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e 26 3d 940, result). 943-44
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.
