INSURANCE - EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY V. HOLMAN BUILDING CO., LLC
In
Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. Holman Building Co., LLC, [Ms. 1100106, Oct. 28, 2011] __ So. 3d __(Ala. 2011), the Alabama Supreme
Court reaffirmed that the decision to allow an insurer to intervene in
an underlying liability case lies within the broad discretion of the trial
court. The case involved a putative class action resulting from defective
"Chinese" dry-wall that was installed in the plaintiffs'
homes. The defendant homebuilder's insurer moved to permissively intervene
in order to have insurance issues decided as part of the underlying liability
case. The trial court denied the insurer's motion and the insurer
appealed. Rule 24(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure governs permissive
intervention in Alabama state courts. In
Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. East Central Alabama Ford-Mercury, Inc., 574 So. 2d 716 (Ala. 1990) and
Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Anglen, 630 So. 2d 441 (Ala. 1993), the Supreme Court previously held that an
insurer may permissively intervene under Rule 24(b) in order to (1) seek
a bifurcated trial in which insurance matters would be tried subsequent
to the underlying claims; or (2) request a special-verdict form or a general-verdict
form accompanied by interrogatories so that the insurer may ascertain
the basis of the jury's verdict. The intervening insurer in
Employers Mutual argued that the trial court had no discretion to deny its motion to intervene
because, in contrast to prior cases, it had requested a bifurcated trial
and, in the alternative, a special-verdict form or a general verdict form with interrogatories.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected the insurer's arguments, noting
that a "motion for permissive intervention is inherently within the
discretion of the trial court" and "nothing in Rule 24(b) deprives
a trial court of its discretion . . . merely because the putative intervenor
seeks multiple forms of relief in the alternative." Accordingly,
the trial court's order denying the insurer's motion for permissive
intervention was affirmed.
RELATED DOCUMENTS