Ex parte Ass’n of Cnty. Comm’ns of Ala. Liab. Self-Ins. Fund, Inc., No. SC-2025-1015, 2026 WL 2277008 (Ala. 2026). The Court (Bryan, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, Cook, McCool, and Parker, JJ., concur) grants the petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the circuit court exceeded its discretion by staying the declaratory-judgment action to the extent the Association of County Commissions of Alabama Liability Self-Insurance Fund (the “Association”) sought a determination of its present duty to defend the Greene County Commission in an underlying tort action. Id. at *1, *8-9. The Court does not require the circuit court to lift the stay as to indemnification issues. Id. at *9.
The underlying tort action arose after county workers sued the Greene County Commission for negligence, outrage, trespass, and nuisance, alleging injuries from exposure to rodent infestations and faulty air-conditioning and roofing systems while working in a county courthouse. Id. at *1. The County Commission was a member of the Association’s self-insurance fund, and the Association had defended the County Commission in the tort action under a purported reservation of rights. Id.
Four and a half years after the filing of the Complaint in the underlying tort action, the Association filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking determination that the workers’ claims were excluded from coverage and that it owed no duty to defend. Id. The circuit court stayed the declaratory-judgment action pending resolution of the tort action, reasoning that deciding the coverage issues would supersede issues already pending in the tort action. Id. at *2.
The Court relies on Ex parte Alfa Mutual Insurance Co., 921 So. 2d 418 (Ala. 2005) and Smith v. North River Insurance Co., 360 So. 2d 313 (Ala. 1978), which illustrate that an insurer may only pursue a declaratory judgment on its duty to defend while an underlying tort action remains pending when the two actions present different issues. Id. at *3-4. The Court further notes that the duty-to-defend inquiry may change as litigation develops because the character of the plaintiff’s claims may change through amended pleadings, evidentiary developments, or proof at trial. Id. at *7-8. Because the circuit court did not identify what issue in the tort action would be superseded by deciding the Association’s present duty to defend, the Court concludes that the declaratory-judgment action should proceed on that issue. Id. at *4, *8-9.
The Court limits mandamus relief to the present duty-to-defend issue. Id. at *5-6. It declines to require the circuit court to decide indemnification issues before the tort action concludes because the Association cited no precedent requiring mandamus relief for that purpose. Id. at *6, *9. Because the Association established a clear legal right to have the stay vacated as to the duty-to-defend issue, the Court directs the circuit court to proceed with the declaratory-judgment action on that issue while leaving any indemnity issues stayed. Id. at *8–9.