Ex parte State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., [Ms. 1180451, Apr. 24, 2020] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2020). The Court (Mitchell, J.; and Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Wise, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., concur; Shaw and Bryan, JJ., concur in the result; Sellers, J., dissents) denies State Farm’s petition for a writ of mandamus that contended plaintiff, who obtained a default judgment against a State Farm insured, was required to file a new direct action against State Farm rather than amending her complaint in the action against the insured. Ms. *3.
Citing its recent decision in Ex parte State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., [Ms. 1170760, January 31, 2020] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2020), the Court holds that “State Farm has failed to meet its burden of establishing that it has no adequate remedy aside from a writ of mandamus. See Ex parte Brian Nelson Excavating, LLC, 25 So. 3d 1143, 1148 (Ala. 2009) (pretermitting consideration of the issue of law raised by the petitioner because of the availability of an adequate remedy on appeal).” Ms. *9.