 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ex parte Alfa Mutual Insurance Co.7/22/2005
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Alfa Mutual Insurance Company ("Alfa") petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Charles C. Partin to vacate his order staying its declaratory-judgment action filed in the Baldwin Circuit Court. We grant the petition and issue the writ.
Facts
In July 2003, Jimmie Young sued Toby Arnette, alleging: "On or about December 8, 2002, [Arnette] did physically attack [Young], and did beat [Young] with [Arnette's] fist and did kick [Young] in the face, which caused [Young] to suffer permanent physical impairment, injury, pain, and suffering."
At the time of the alleged attack, Arnette owned an Alfa homeowner's policy, which provided specified personal-liability coverage to Arnette, but also contained the following exclusion:
"Coverage E - Personal liability does not apply to bodily injury which is either expected or intended by an insured; or which is a result of a willful or malicious act of an insured."
In December 2004, Alfa filed an action seeking a judgment declaring that based on the exclusionary clause it had no duty to defend Arnette or to indemnify him in the event a judgment was entered against him in Young's personal-injury case. In March 2005, Young, a named defendant in Alfa's declaratory-judgment action, moved to stay the declaratory- judgment action, and the trial court granted the stay until his personal-injury action is resolved.
Alfa petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge to vacate his order staying the declaratory-judgment action. Standard of Review "'This Court has consistently held that the writ of mandamus is an extraordinary and drastic writ and that a party seeking such a writ must meet certain criteria. We will issue the writ of mandamus only when (1) the petitioner has a clear legal right to the relief sought; (2) the respondent has an imperative duty to perform and has refused to do so; (3) the petitioner has no other adequate remedy; and (4) this Court's jurisdiction is properly invoked. Ex parte Mercury Fin. Corp., 715 So. 2d 196, 198 (Ala. 1997). Because mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, the standard by which this Court reviews a petition for the writ of mandamus is to determine whether the trial court has clearly abused its discretion. See Ex parte Rudolph, 515 So. 2d 704, 706 (Ala. 1987).'
"Ex parte Flint Constr. Co., 775 So. 2d 805, 808 (Ala. 2000)." Ex parte Barrows, 892 So. 2d 914, 916 (Ala. 2004).
Legal Analysis
Alfa contends that because this Court has approved the use of a declaratory-judgment action to determine an insurer's duties and liabilities during the pendency of a previously filed action against its insured for damages and because the issues in Young's personal-injury action against Arnette are not identical to the issues in its declaratory-judgment action, the trial court exceeded the scope of its discretion when it granted Young's motion to stay the declaratory- judgment action. Young maintains that the trial court properly stayed the declaratory-judgment action because, he says, the declaratory- judgment action is premature and a ruling in that action may result in a "hypothetical" judgment, i.e., a judgment that may never be enforced; the factual issues concerning the assault in the personal-injury action are the same issues presented in the declaratory-judgment action; and Alfa failed to include indispensable parties in the declaratory- judgment action.
"This Court has consistently held that a declaratory judgment action will not be entertained if there is pending a prior action to which the same persons are parties and in which the same issu
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.
|
|