 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alfa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Meroney6/30/2005
her that Alfa has a duty to indemnify the Defendant, Merle Morgan, as to the judgment returned against her."
Alfa timely appealed the March 17, 2004, judgment to this court.
On appeal, Alfa first argues that the trial court erred in holding that the special interrogatory was improper. Although the trial court did not state its rationale for that holding, Meroney had argued to the trial court that the special interrogatory was improper because the jury verdict in favor of Meroney on her claims for unintentional torts foreclosed Alfa from litigating the insurance-coverage issue whether Meroney's injury or damage was either expected or intended by Morgan. Alfa argues on appeal that the jury's verdict on Meroney's claims does not control the adjudication of the insurance-coverage issue. We agree.
In Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Moore, 349 So. 2d 1113 (Ala. 1977), Ludie Moore, an insured of Farm Bureau, sued Farm Bureau seeking a judgment declaring that Farm Bureau was obligated to indemnify Moore against a $25,000 judgment obtained against Moore in a personal-injury lawsuit brought by Iva Nell Strickland. Strickland had been injured when Moore knocked her into a plate-glass window during an argument. In her personal-injury lawsuit, Strickland had originally sued Moore for both assault and battery and negligence. On the day of trial, however, Strickland dismissed her claim for assault and battery and withdrew her jury demand. The case proceeded to trial before the trial judge on Strickland's negligence claim only. After the trial, the trial judge entered a judgment against Moore and in favor of Strickland in the amount of $25,000 on Strickland's negligence claim. Declining to indemnify Moore against Strickland's judgment, Farm Bureau asserted that the policy it had issued to Moore did not cover the judgment because: (1) the policy did not cover "'bodily injury or property damage which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured,'" 349 So. 2d at 1114 (emphasis omitted); and (2) Moore had intentionally knocked Strickland into the plate-glass window.
In the subsequent declaratory-judgment action brought against Farm Bureau by Moore, Strickland, who had also been made a party, moved for a summary judgment against Farm Bureau. When Farm Bureau opposed the summary judgment with an affidavit tending to prove that Moore had intentionally knocked Strickland into the plate-glass window, Strickland argued that the judgment against Moore on Strickland's negligence claim collaterally estopped Farm Bureau from litigating the issue whether Strickland's injuries were intended by Moore. The trial court agreed and entered a summary judgment against Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau then appealed to the supreme court. The supreme court held that the judgment against Moore on Strickland's negligence claim did not collaterally estop Farm Bureau from litigating the insurance-coverage issue, and it reversed the summary judgment entered against Farm Bureau by the trial court. The supreme court explained:
"For the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply, ... the identical point must have been in issue, and the judgment must have been rendered on that point. ... The question of whether the injury was expected or intended was not the issue in Strickland v. Moore and the judgment was not rendered on that point. ..."
349 So. 2d at 1116 (emphasis added; citations omitted).
Thus, in the case now before us, we conclude that the jury verdict against Morgan and in favor of Meroney on her claims for unintentional torts did not adjudicate the issue whether Meroney's injury or damage was either expected or intended by Morgan, and,
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.
|
|