 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lifestar Response of Alabama12/3/2004
to the trial court; we do not, however, review a punitive-damages award for excessiveness where the issue has not been properly raised before the trial court.
Because of the procedural and evidentiary deficiencies infecting Lifestar's claim that the punitive-damages award was excessive, we are in no position independently to assess the constitutional propriety of that award.
Conclusion
Having considered all of the issues raised on appeal by Lifestar and all of its supporting arguments and cited legal authorities, we conclude (1) that the default judgment entered on May 29, 2003, is not due to be set aside as void for insufficiency of service; (2) that Lifestar received sufficient notice of the fact that it was the entity intended to be sued in the action, so that amendment of the judgment to identify it as the defendant and judgment debtor does not represent a change of parties or deprive Lifestar of its right to due process; (3) that Judge Price did not exceed his discretion, under the Kirtland test, in refusing to set aside the default judgment; and (4) that Lifestar has failed to present for appellate review its claim of excessiveness of the punitive-damages award. The judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Nabers, C.J., and See, Brown, and Stuart, JJ., concur.
|