 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ex parte Alfa Mutual Insurance Co.7/22/2005
es may be adjudicated. ...
"'...'
"If a court is allowed to entertain a declaratory judgment action, then its judgment might be inconsistent with an order entered in the prior pending action dealing with the same issue."
Evans v. Cumberland Lake Country Club, Inc., 682 So. 2d 11, 15 (Ala. 1996) (citations omitted). "An action for declaratory judgment may not supersede the determination of an issue already pending in another action filed prior to the declaratory judgment." Mathis v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 387 So. 2d 166, 167 (Ala. 1980).
In Smith v. North River Insurance Co., 360 So. 2d 313 (Ala. 1978), this Court held that while an action was pending against the insured, the insurer could bring a declaratory-judgment action to determine whether the insurer was obligated under the provisions of the insured's policy to defend the insured in the earlier action. In Smith, the insured wounded an individual and the individual sued the insured alleging negligence and wantonness. The insured requested that North River Insurance defend him in the action. North River Insurance refused and filed a declaratory-judgment action to determine its duty to defend and whether its policy with the insured covered the incident. The insured's policy excluded from coverage "'bodily injury or property damage which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.'" 360 So. 2d at 315. This Court held that the insurer's pursuit of the declaratory judgment was proper because the issue in the declaratory-judgment action was different from the issue in the personal-injury suit. Specifically, this Court held:
"The issue raised in the declaratory judgment action was whether the insurance company was obligated, under the policy provisions, to defend the action brought ... against the insured. This issue turned on whether the injury , the basis of the personal injury suit, was 'expected or intended' as those terms are used in the contract between the insurance company and its insured. That is not the issue in the personal injury suit."
360 So. 2d at 315.
Here, Alfa, like the insurer in North River that requested a determination of its duty to defend the insured in light of the circumstances and the language in the insured's policy, seeks a judgment determining its duty to defend its insured. This determination is different from the issue presented in Young's personal-injury action.
The cases cited by Young in his answer to Alfa's petition for the writ of mandamus are not sufficiently applicable to require a stay of Alfa's declaratory-judgment action pending the resolution of his personal-injury action. Young's reliance on MacMillan-Bloedel, Inc. v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of New Jersey, 558 F. Supp. 596 (S.D. Ala. 1983), is misplaced. That case involved a declaratory-judgment action brought against the insurer by the plaintiff in a previously filed negligence action against the insured. The federal district court held that the declaratory-judgment action was premature because the liability between the plaintiff and the insured had not yet been decided. Here, the insurer is seeking a determination as to whether it has a duty to defend the insured in the plaintiff's action against the insured. Therefore, MacMillan-Bloedel, Inc. has no application in this case.
Young further argues that the holding in Home Insurance Co. v. Hillview 78 West Fire District, 395 So. 2d 43 (Ala. 1981), supports the issuance of the stay. In Home Insurance Co., this Court held that dismissal of the declaratory-judgment action was proper where the insurance company's declaratory-judgment action sought review of the same issue involved in the pr
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.
|
|