 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
EX PARTE PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA2/9/1996
The defendants, Elaine Katz and The Prudential Insurance Company of America, petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Eddie Hardaway, Jr., of the Greene Circuit Court to transfer Jimmy Wall's action against them to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court.
Wall purchased an insurance policy from Prudential, through its agent Katz in 1983. The sale of the policy occurred in Tuscaloosa County. That insurance policy and the occurrences leading to its purchase by Wall form the basis of his lawsuit. In October 1994, Wall filed a complaint against Prudential, Katz, and several fictitiously named defendants in the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. That complaint alleged two counts of fraud. Wall later moved for a voluntary dismissal of the complaint; that motion was granted. In December 1994, Wall filed another complaint in the Greene Circuit Court against the same defendants. His second complaint was substantially similar to the first, but added a breach of contract claim against Prudential.
Prudential and Katz filed motions to have the action dismissed for improper venue or, alternatively, to have it transferred to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. Both defendants argued that under Ala. Code 1975, §§ 6-3-2(a)(3) and 6-3-5, venue in the action is proper only in Tuscaloosa County. Katz also argued that the action should be transferred to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court on the basis of the forum non conveniens statute, Ala. Code 1975, § 6-3-21.1, alleging that she had severe health problems that would prevent her from litigating the action in Greene County. Judge Hardaway denied the motions for dismissal and likewise denied the motions for transfer; hence, these petitions for a writ of mandamus.
A petition for a writ of mandamus may be used as a means to challenge a trial judge's refusal to transfer a case to another county. Ex parte Blount, 665 So.2d 205 (Ala. 1995); Ex parte Kennedy, 656 So.2d 365 (Ala. 1995); Ex parte Alabama Power Co., 640 So.2d 921 (Ala. 1994). However, this Court will not grant the petition "unless the petitioner makes a clear showing that the trial court erred in refusing the transfer." Ex parte Kennedy, 656 So.2d at 367.
I.
It is undisputed that both the plaintiff Wall and the defendant Katz reside in Tuscaloosa County. It is also undisputed that all the transactions and occurrences leading to the sale of the policy by Prudential to Wall took place in Tuscaloosa County. Finally, it is undisputed that Prudential is a foreign corporation doing business in Tuscaloosa County, Greene County, and other Alabama counties. These facts must be applied to the statutes controlling venue for the claims alleged in Wall's complaint in order to determine whether venue is proper in Greene County, or, as the petitioners contend, is proper only in Tuscaloosa County.
Additionally, under Rule 82(c), Ala.R.Civ.P., " here several claims or parties have been joined, the suit may be brought in any county in which any one of the claims could have properly been brought." When Rule 82(c) is applicable, venue is proper for all defendants in any county where it is proper for any claim against one defendant. Accordingly, venue is proper for all the claims against these petitioners in any county where it is proper for any one claim against either of the petitioners.
II.
Wall has alleged fraud claims and a breach of contract claim against Prudential. We first discuss the issue of venue as to the breach of contract claim. The petitioners argue that venue for this claim is controlled solely by Ala. Code 1975, § 6-3-5(a), and, given the effect of Amendment 473 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, they say that venue for Wall's breach of con
Page 1 2 3 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|