The Appellate Corner, 0513 ALBJ, 74 The Alabama Lawyer 188 (2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0By Wilson F. Green
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Wilson F. Green is a partner in Fleenor & Green LLP in Tuscaloosa. He is a summa cum laude graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law and a former law clerk to the Hon. Robert B. Propst, United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. From 2000-09, Green served as adjunct professor at the law school, where he taught courses in class actions and complex litigation. He represents consumers and businesses in consumer and commercial litigation.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0By Marc A. Starrett
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Marc A. Starrett is an assistant attorney general for the State of Alabama and represents the state in criminal appeals and habeas corpus in all state and federal courts. He is a graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law. Starrett served as staff attorney to Justice Kenneth Ingram and Justice Mark Kennedy on the Alabama Supreme Court, and was engaged in civil and criminal practice in Montgomery before appointment to the Office of the Attorney General. Among other cases for the office, Starrett successfully prosecuted Bobby Frank Cherry on appeal from his murder convictions for the 1963 bombing of Birmingham’s Sixteenth Street Baptist Church.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0RECENT CIVIL DECISIONS
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0From the Alabama Supreme Court
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Pharmaceuticals
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks, No. 1101397 (Ala. Jan. 11, 2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0NOTE: This case is on petition for rehearing. The question presented: whether under Alabama law, may a drug company be held liable for fraud or misrepresentation (by misstatement or omission), based on statements it made in connection with the manufacture or distribution of a brand-name drug, by a plaintiff claiming physical injury from use of the generic-equivalent drug manufactured and distributed by a different company? On original submission, the court answered in the affirmative by an 8-1 majority
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Equitable Tolling
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Weaver v. Firestone, No. 1101403 (Ala. Jan. 11, 2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Held: (1) the “savings” provision (or “discovery rule”), codified in Ala. Code § 6-2-3, saves an otherwise untimely claim only where the plaintiff was unaware of his injury or his cause of action, but it does not save a claim where the plaintiff knows of his claims but not of the identity of the proper defendant; (2) equitable tolling requires exercise of “reasonable diligence, ” which would, if necessary, require the filing of a complaint against solely fictitious parties (under Rule 9(h)) within the applicable statute of limitations, even though there would be no one to serve, such a complaint would provide evidence that the plaintiff intended to pursue her claims.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Direct Actions
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Admiral Ins. Co. v. Price-Williams, No. 1110993 (Ala. Jan. 11, 2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Price-Williams (“PW”) obtained judgment against fraternity officers covered by Admiral policy, on theories of (1) assault and battery and (2) negligence and wantonness in failing to implement fraternity risk management program. PW then brought direct action against Admiral under Ala. Code § 27-23-2, the direct action statute. The trial court entered judgment after a bench trial in favor of PW. The supreme court affirmed, rejecting Admiral’s argument that the covered claims (negligence) and non-covered claims (A&B) were so intertwined as to destroy coverage. The court reasoned that the wrongful acts under the two theories were separate and distinct.
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Forum Non Conveniens
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Ex parte Waltman, No. 1111598 (Ala. Jan. 11, 2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Owens (Hale Co. resident) sued Waltman (Tuscaloosa Co. resident) and Waltman’s employer, Griffin (a corporation with a principal office in Perry Co.) in Circuit Court of Perry County, for injuries sustained in accident occurring in Tuscaloosa County. Defendants moved for forum non conveniens transfer, arguing that since workers’ comp benefits were also involved, Perry County had a strong interest for nexus purposes. The trial court severed the comp claims but denied transfer of the tort claims. The supreme court granted mandamus relief, reasoning that under its recent line of “interests of justice”/”nexus” cases, “the petitioners have established that Tuscaloosa County has a stronger connection to the claims in this case than has Perry County.”
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Retroactivity
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Alabama Insurance Guaranty Ass’n. v. Mercy Medical Ass’n., No. 1111206 (Ala. Feb. 15, 2013)
\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0\xA0Held: 2009 amendments to the Alabama Insurance...
To continue reading
Request your trial