GEICO v. Evans, et al., [Ms. 1180699, Jan. 17, 2020] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2020). The Court (Bryan, J.; Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur) holds that a default judgment entered against GEICO approximately 49 days before GEICO was added as a party was void. The plaintiff argued that GEICO had “‘constructive notice’ of potential litigation because it had actual notice of Grey’s [GEICO’s insured’s] accident involving the plaintiffs ....” Ms. *6. The Court agreed with GEICO that such “‘constructive notice of potential litigation’ clearly falls short of even the most basic requirements of due process.” Ms. *6-7. “[A] judgment entered in a manner inconsistent with due process is void.” Ms. *7, citing Neal v. Neal, 856 So. 2d 766, 781 (Ala. 2002).