Case Title: Attenta, Inc. v. Calhoun

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1100742

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2012-05-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 
05/18/12 
Notice: T h i s 
o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e 
r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of Decisions, 
Alabama 
A p p e l l a t e 
C o u r t s , 
300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 
((334) 
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made 
b e f o r e t h e 
o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 
1100742 
Attenta, 
Inc. 
v. 
Lula Calhoun 
Appeal from Wilcox C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-07-900046) 
WOODALL, J u s t i c e . 
T h i s i s 
an a p p e a l 
from a judgment e n t e r e d on a j u r y 
v e r d i c t f o r L u l a Calhoun, based on 
h e r 
c l a i m a l l e g i n g t h e t o r t 
of o u t r a g e a g a i n s t A t t e n t a , I n c . ( " A t t e n t a " ) , t h e t h i r d - p a r t y 
a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f 
the w o r k e r s ' compensation program f o r L i n d e n 
1100742 
Lumber Company, I n c . ( " L i n d e n " ) . 
We v a c a t e the judgment and 
d i s m i s s the case and the a p p e a l . 
I . F a c t u a l and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y 
T h i s case u l t i m a t e l y a r o s e out o f a w o r k p l a c e a c c i d e n t i n 
w h i c h R o b e r t Lee Calhoun, J r . , the husband of L u l a Calhoun, 
was 
f a t a l l y 
i n j u r e d w h i l e employed by L i n d e n . 
On March 14, 
2003, f o l l o w i n g h i s d e a t h , Calhoun 
f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t 
L i n d e n i n the Marengo C i r c u i t 
C o u r t ( h e r e i n a f t e r sometimes 
r e f e r r e d t o as the "Marengo County a c t i o n " ) , s e e k i n g worker's 
compensation d e a t h b e n e f i t s , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 25¬
5-60 e t seq. 
On o r about J u l y 14, 2003, Calhoun amended her c o m p l a i n t 
t o add as a d e f e n d a n t G.A. West & Company, I n c . ("West"). 
She 
amended her c o m p l a i n t a second time on May 14, 2004, t o add as 
d e f e n d a n t s 
F o r e s t 
P r o d u c t s 
E n g i n e e r i n g , 
I n c . 
( " F o r e s t 
P r o d u c t s " ) , 
and 
v a r i o u s 
of 
her 
deceased 
husband's 
co-
employees. 
Her amended c o m p l a i n t s a l l e g e d 
t h a t West 
and 
F o r e s t P r o d u c t s were " i n charge o f the work a r e a and/or the 
p r e m i s e s " 
where 
the 
a c c i d e n t 
t h a t 
i n j u r e d 
Mr. 
Calhoun 
o c c u r r e d . 
They f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t West and F o r e s t P r o d u c t s 
n e g l i g e n t l y or w a n t o n l y f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e Mr. Calhoun a s a f e 
2 
1100742 
p l a c e t o 
work, r e s u l t i n g i n 
h i s 
w r o n g f u l d e a t h . 
F i n a l l y , 
t h e y 
a l l e g e d w i l l f u l m i s c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t o f t h e co-employees. 
On June 1, 2005, t h e 
Marengo C i r c u i t C o u r t i s s u e d " f i n d i n g s 
o f 
f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f law, 
and o r d e r " as t o Calhoun's worker's 
compensation c l a i m a g a i n s t L i n d e n , 
a w a r d i n g Calhoun 
f u t u r e 
w e e k l y d e a t h b e n e f i t s f o r 
375 weeks. 
The o r d e r a l s o s t a t e d , 
i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
" I t i s f u r t h e r ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED 
t h a t 
[ L i n d e n ] 
s h a l l 
be 
r e l e a s e d 
and 
f o r e v e r 
d i s c h a r g e d 
from 
a l l c l a i m s 
a r i s i n g 
out o f t h e 
deceased's employment w i t h [ i t ] 
and t h a t [Linden] i s 
 
s u b r o g a t e d , 
as p r o v i d e d under A l a . 
Code § 25-5-11 
(1975) 
as 
amended, 
t o 
any 
r e c o v e r y 
t h r o u g h 
 
s e t t l e m e n t , judgment o r o t h e r w i s e t h a t [Calhoun] may  
r e c e i v e o r r e c o v e r from o r on b e h a l f o f any t h i r d  
p a r t y f o r t h e i n j u r i e s 
r e c e i v e d by t h e deceased 
and/or 
[Calhoun] 
and made t h e s u b j e c t 
o f 
t h i s 
a c t i o n . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
The c o u r t d i d 
n o t c e r t i f y t h e o r d e r as a 
f i n a l judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P. 
In t h e meantime, l i t i g a t i o n i n v o l v i n g t h e o t h e r p a r t i e s 
and c l a i m s p r o c e e d e d apace. F o r 
example, on January 20, 2007, 
West moved f o r a summary judgment. 
Calhoun moved f o r a 
summary judgment on A p r i l 4, 2007, and F o r e s t P r o d u c t s moved 
f o r a summary judgment on August 3, 2007. 
West's m o t i o n was 
d e n i e d on May 3, 2007. 
3 
1100742 
In 
e a r l y 
September 
2007, 
a 
f l u r r y 
of 
s e t t l e m e n t 
n e g o t i a t i o n s 
o c c u r r e d among c o u n s e l 
f o r 
(1) 
Calhoun, 
(2) 
L i n d e n , 
(3) West, and 
(4) F o r e s t P r o d u c t s . 
On September 5, 
2007, L i n d e n ' s 
c o u n s e l s e n t a l e t t e r t o Calhoun's 
c o u n s e l ; 
t h a t l e t t e r s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
" T h i s l e t t e r c o n f i r m s t h a t [Linden] has o f f e r e d 
to r e l e a s e i t s c r e d i t and s u b r o g a t i o n l i e n , i n p a r t , 
a g a i n s t 
the 
worker's 
compensation 
and 
m e d i c a l 
b e n e f i t s p a i d t o [Calhoun] 
i n the above r e f e r e n c e d 
a c t i o n [ ] , 
so 
l o n g 
as 
[Calhoun] 
acknowledges 
and 
agrees 
t o waive h e r 
r i g h t t o seek and 
[Linden] 
t o 
r e c o v e r the next $75,000.00 i n f u t u r e death b e n e f i t s 
a l l e g e d l y due t o h e r . 
In exchange f o r t h i s o f f e r by 
my 
c l i e n t , 
[Calhoun] 
must r e l e a s e 
[Linden and 
Mr. 
Calhoun's co-employees] from any and a l l c l a i m s f o r 
w h i c h 
[Calhoun 
has] 
a s s e r t e d 
and/or 
c o u l d 
have 
a s s e r t e d 
a g a i n s t 
t h e s e 
d e f e n d a n t s 
and 
any 
o t h e r 
[Linden] employee. 
"Per 
our 
c o n v e r s a t i o n 
t h i s 
a f t e r n o o n , 
I 
u n d e r s t a n d t h a t [Calhoun] 
w i l l 
a c c e p t 
t h i s 
o f f e r . 
I am g l a d t h a t the p a r t i e s were a b l e t o come t o a 
r e s o l u t i o n of t h e s e 
m a t t e r s . " 
(Second emphasis added.) 
The next day -- September 6, 2007 -- West's c o u n s e l s e n t 
Calhoun's c o u n s e l a l e t t e r , 
s t a t i n g , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
" [ Y ] o u j u s t c o n f i r m e d by t e l e p h o n e t h a t 
[Calhoun 
has] 
compromised 
[her] 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
[West] 
i n 
exchange 
f o r 
... 
payment 
i n 
the 
amount 
of 
[$175,000]. 
A more f o r m a l 
r e l e a s e and 
i n d e m n i t y 
agreement w i l l 
f o l l o w . 
Of c o u r s e , 
the 
s e t t l e m e n t 
r e q u i r e s 
[Calhoun] 
t o be 
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r -- 
and 
4 
1100742 
p r o t e c t 
[West] 
from -- 
the worker's 
compensation 
s u b r o g a t i o n 
l i e n . 
" P l e a s e r e p l y w i t h the manner i n which you would 
l i k e 
the 
checks 
w r i t t e n 
a l o n g 
w i t h 
your 
t a x 
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers." 
That same day, Calhoun's c o u n s e l responded t o West's 
c o u n s e l , 
s t a t i n g , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " T h i s w i l l acknowledge 
r e c e i p t o f 
your l e t t e r of September 6, 2007. 
You s h o u l d make a check i n 
the amount o f $175,000.00 ... t o L u l a Calhoun and her a t t o r n e y 
.... 
I w i l l have someone from my 
o f f i c e 
c a l l your 
s e c r e t a r y 
w i t h our t a x ID number 
" 
A n o t h e r l e t t e r was s e n t t h a t same day, September 6, 2007, 
t o Calhoun's c o u n s e l from c o u n s e l f o r F o r e s t P r o d u c t s . 
That 
l e t t e r s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
" T h i s 
w i l l 
c o n f i r m 
t h a t 
we 
have 
a g r e e d 
t o 
r e s o l v e and s e t t l e a l l c l a i m s b r o u g h t i n the Calhoun 
... c a s e [ ] a g a i n s t 
[ F o r e s t P r o d u c t s ] f o r a payment 
of 
[$17,500] 
i n r e t u r n 
f o r a p r o 
t a n t o 
f u l l 
and 
f i n a l 
r e l e a s e of a l l c l a i m s 
and a p r o t a n t o 
j o i n t 
s t i p u l a t i o n 
of d i s m i s s a l w i t h p r e j u d i c e of 
[ F o r e s t 
P r o d u c t s ] . 
" I w i l l have a check i n t h a t amount made p a y a b l e 
t o 
[Calhoun's c o u n s e l ] and d e l i v e r i t t o you upon 
r e c e i p t 
of the e x e c u t e d R e l e a s e and 
f i l e d 
J o i n t 
S t i p u l a t i o n . 
"Thank you f o r your p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m i n h a n d l i n g 
t h i s 
case w i t h me, 
and good l u c k i n your 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
[West]." 
5 
1100742 
(Emphasis i n o r i g i n a l . ) 
Correspondence b e g i n n i n g on September 11, 2007, 
however, 
r e v e a l s t h a t elements of u n c e r t a i n t y remained as t o the terms 
of the p r o p o s e d s e t t l e m e n t s . 
On t h a t day, L i n d e n ' s 
c o u n s e l 
wrote Calhoun's c o u n s e l , 
s t a t i n g , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
"My 
l e t t e r 
o f September 
5, 
2007, 
a c c u r a t e l y 
s t a t e s our agreement. 
Your 
l e t t e r which 
f o l l o w e d 
the n e x t day does not d i s p u t e i t . I t was not 
u n t i l 
you c a l l e d me y e s t e r d a y 
t h a t you a t t e m p t e d t o change  
or o t h e r w i s e a l t e r our 
agreement. 
"Your attempt t o r e - c h a r a c t e r i z e the 
s e t t l e m e n t 
as ' o f f the back-end of f u t u r e d e a t h b e n e f i t s ' makes 
no 
sense. 
G e n e r a l l y , 
the purpose 
of Alabama's 
Worker's Compensation A c t i s t o p r e v e n t the d o u b l e 
r e c o v e r y 
of b e n e f i t s . ... Your new 
a s s e r t i o n would 
have the e f f e c t of d o i n g j u s t t h a t -- p r o v i d i n g L u l a 
Calhoun w i t h d o u b l e b e n e f i t s . 
That was not p a r t o f 
our agreement. 
The s t o r y t h a t you a r e now a d v a n c i n g 
... never 
o c c u r r e d . 
"As 
you 
know, 
my 
c l i e n t , 
[ L i n d e n ] , 
needs 
immediate 
r e l i e f 
from i t s o b l i g a t i o n 
t o 
c o n t i n u e 
p a y i n g L u l a Calhoun d e a t h b e n e f i t s . 
I t i s the o n l y 
r e a s o n t h a t we a g r e e d t o n e g o t i a t e w i t h [her] i n the 
f i r s t 
p l a c e . 
" I have n o t i f i e d 
[West's] c o u n s e l , by copy o f 
t h i s 
l e t t e r , 
t h a t 
[Linden] c o n t i n u e s 
t o a s s e r t i t s 
f u l l 
c r e d i t and s u b r o g a t i o n 
i n t e r e s t s i n t h i s case 
and any payment of s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e e d s by them would  
be a t i t s p e r i l . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
6 
1100742 
On 
September 27, 2007, West's c o u n s e l wrote Calhoun's 
c o u n s e l , s t a t i n g , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
" I have r e c e i v e d s e t t l e m e n t 
c h e c k s . 
We 
are 
ready, 
w i l l i n g and 
a b l e t o pay 
... 
$175, 000.00 t o 
L u l a Calhoun 
.... 
As 
you know, however, we 
have  
some concern 
about 
[Linden's 
c o u n s e l ' s ] 
September 
 
11, 2007, l e t t e r 
a r t i c u l a t i n g some k i n d of d i s p u t e  
between 
[Calhoun] 
and 
[ L i n d e n ] , and 
n o t i f y i n g 
us 
t h a t 
[Linden] 
' c o n t i n u e s t o a s s e r t i t s f u l l 
c r e d i t 
and 
s u b r o g a t i o n 
i n t e r e s t s 
i n 
t h i s 
case 
and 
any 
payment of s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e e d s by [West] would be a t 
i t s 
p e r i l . ' 
"[West's] 
s e t t l e m e n t was 
w i t h 
[ C a l h o u n ] , 
not 
w i t h [ L i n d e n ] . 
[Calhoun i s ] r e s p o n s i b l e t o 
s a t i s f y 
[ L i n d e n ' s ] w o r k e r s ' compensation 
l i e n s . 
"... 
[Y]ou asked t h a t I h o l d on t o t h e s e checks 
f o r the time b e i n g . 
I u n d e r s t a n d 
t h a t you 
... 
are 
w o r k i n g 
t o 
r e s o l v e 
the 
p r e s e n t 
d i s p u t e 
w i t h 
[ L i n d e n ] . 
I l o o k f o r w a r d t o h e a r i n g from you 
next 
week r e g a r d i n g the 
m a t t e r . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
On September 21, 2007 -- on the t h e o r y t h a t s e t t l e m e n t s 
had been r e a c h e d e x t i n g u i s h i n g L i n d e n ' s 
l i a b i l i t y t o Calhoun 
f o r f u r t h e r worker's compensation d e a t h b e n e f i t s -- A t t e n t a 
d i s c o n t i n u e d the monthly payments t o Calhoun. 
N e v e r t h e l e s s , 
the 
l i t i g a t i o n c o n t i n u e d . 
On October 25, 2007, West, i n a 
"second 
amended 
answer 
t o 
p l a i n t i f f ' s 
second 
amended 
c o m p l a i n t , " 
f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m a g a i n s t Calhoun and a c r o s s -
c l a i m a g a i n s t L i n d e n f o r " i n t e r p l e a d e r . " On November 8, 2007, 
7 
1100742 
L i n d e n 
f i l e d an answer t o the c r o s s - c l a i m and an "answer of 
c o u n t e r c l a i m . " 
On November 12, 2007, Calhoun commenced t h i s a c t i o n by 
f i l i n g 
a t h r e e - c o u n t c o m p l a i n t i n the W i l c o x C i r c u i t 
C o u r t 
a g a i n s t L i n d e n and A t t e n t a 
( h e r e i n a f t e r sometimes r e f e r r e d t o 
as 
"the W i l c o x County 
a c t i o n " ) , 
a l l e g i n g 
(1) the 
t o r t 
of 
o u t r a g e , 
(2) 
f r a u d , 
and 
(3) 
c o n s p i r a c y . 
The 
c o m p l a i n t 
a l l e g e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
"8. On or about September 5, 2007, L u l a 
Calhoun 
was 
n e g o t i a t i n g 
s e t t l e m e n t of 
a 
l a w s u i t 
a g a i n s t 
[West] 
r e s u l t i n g 
from 
t h e 
death 
of 
R o b e r t 
Lee 
Calhoun, 
J r . 
The 
p a r t i e s were a t t e m p t i n g t o work 
out a s e t t l e m e n t c o n t i n g e n t on the w a i v e r o f a l l 
r i g h t of c r e d i t / s u b r o g a t i o n t o a l l 
m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s 
and w o r k e r s ' compensation 
d e a t h b e n e f i t s p r e v i o u s l y 
p a i d by 
[ L i n d e n ] . 
"9. A d i s p u t e a r o s e over the terms o f the w a i v e r 
by 
[ L i n d e n ] . 
[Linden] 
contends 
no agreement 
was 
r e a c h e d over t h e terms o f the w a i v e r . 
"10. 
[Linden] 
n o t i f i e d 
[West] t h a t 
d e f e n d a n t , 
[ L i n d e n ] , 
c o n t i n u e s t o a s s e r t i t s f u l l 
c r e d i t 
and 
s u b r o g a t i o n 
i n t e r e s t 
i n p l a i n t i f f , 
L u l a 
Calhoun's 
case and 
[ t h a t ] any payment of s e t t l e m e n t b e n e f i t s 
by [West] would be a t i t s p e r i l . 
"11. 
[Linden and] A t t e n t a then s t o p p e d payment 
on a l l 
w o r k e r s ' compensation 
d e a t h b e n e f i t payments 
t o [ C a l h o u n ] . 
"  
8 
1100742 
"13. 
Defendants 
have 
committed 
the 
t o r t 
of 
o u t r a g e 
by 
engaging 
i n an 
u n l a w f u l 
m e n t a l 
and 
f i n a n c i a l 
a s s a u l t on 
[Calhoun] w i t h the i n t e n t t o 
cause [her] s e v e r e e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s and 
f i n a n c i a l 
e x t o r t i o n 
i n 
o r d e r 
t o 
f o r c e 
a 
s e t t l e m e n t 
of 
[Calhoun's] t h i r d p a r t y a c t i o n a g a i n s t 
[West] 
t h a t 
would 
be 
advantageous 
t o 
[ L i n d e n ] . 
D e f e n d a n t s ' 
 
a c t i o n s are i n d i r e c t v i o l a t i o n of the June 1, 2005,  
Order 
of 
the 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t 
of Marengo 
County, 
 
Alabama, 
f i l e d h e r e w i t h as E x h i b i t 1. 
D e f e n d a n t s ' 
conduct i s so o u t r a g e o u s i n c h a r a c t e r and so extreme 
i n 
degree 
so as t o be r e g a r d e d as 
a t r o c i o u s 
and 
u t t e r l y i n t o l e r a b l e i n a c i v i l i z e d s o c i e t y . 
"14. As a p r o x i m a t e consequence of d e f e n d a n t s ' 
o u t r a g e o u s c o n d u c t , 
p l a i n t i f f 
has been caused t o 
s u f f e r 
s e v e r e 
e m o t i o n a l 
s t r e s s 
and 
p h y s i c a l 
s u f f e r i n g and f i n a n c i a l l o s s . 
"  
i n 
"16. P u r s u a n t t o an Order e n t e r e d by the C o u r t  
the case s t y l e d , L u l a Calhoun, e t a l . 
v s . L i n d e n  
Lumber Company, I n c . , and b e a r i n g C i v i l a c t i o n No. 
CV-03-50 i n the 
C i r c u i t C o u r t o f Marengo 
County, 
Alabama, d e f e n d a n t , [Linden] was o r d e r e d t o pay t o 
p l a i n t i f f as f o l l o w s : 
"'The 
P l a i n t i f f L u l a Calhoun s h a l l 
r e c e i v e 
g r o s s 
w o r k e r s ' 
compensation 
b e n e f i t s 
of 
$379.33 f o r the n e x t 66 weeks, s a i d amount 
r e p r e s e n t i n g 
2/3 
of 
the 
w o r k e r s ' 
compensation b e n e f i t s p a y a b l e d u r i n g 
s a i d 
p e r i o d . 
T h e r e a f t e r , 
the 
P l a i n t i f f 
L u l a 
Calhoun 
s h a l l 
r e c e i v e 
g r o s s 
w o r k e r s ' 
compensation b e n e f i t s of $437.50 f o r the 
n e x t 
309 
weeks 
t h e r e a f t e r , 
s a i d 
amount 
r e p r e s e n t i n g the f u l l w o r k e r s ' compensation 
d e a t h b e n e f i t of 50% of the average w e e k l y 
wage 
o f 
the 
deceased 
worker 
w i t h 
one 
dependent. 
S a i d g r o s s b e n e f i t s awarded are 
9 
1100742 
s u b j e c t t o an a t t o r n e y ' s f e e 
as s e t f o r t h 
l a t e r i n t h i s o r d e r . ' 
"See 
Second 
Addendum 
t o 
F i n d i n g s 
o f 
F a c t , 
 
C o n c l u s i o n s o f Law, and Order, s i g n e d by Hon. E d d i e  
Hardaway, J r . , 
d a t e d 
June 1, 2005 and a t t a c h e d 
h e r e t o as E x h i b i t 1. 
"17. 
[ L i n d e n and A t t e n t a ] 
r e p r e s e n t e d t o 
t h e 
 
C o u r t and t o [Calhoun] 
t h a t w o r k e r s ' 
compensation 
d e a t h 
b e n e f i t payments would be made p u r s u a n t t o 
t h i s 
Order, and [Linden and A t t e n t a ] d i d 
i n f a c t  
b e g i n making payments p u r s u a n t t o t h e Order. 
"18. 
[Calhoun] 
r e l i e d 
upon 
[Linden 
and 
A t t e n t a ' s ] r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t s a i d payments would 
be made. 
"19. S a i d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s were f a l s e and [ L i n d e n 
and 
A t t e n t a ] 
made 
them 
w i l l f u l l y 
t o 
i n d u c e 
[Calhoun] t o a c t , o r 
were f r a u d u l e n t l y 
o r r e c k l e s s l y 
r e p r e s e n t e d 
as 
t r u e 
and 
i n t e n d e d 
t o 
d e c e i v e 
[ C a l h o u n ] . 
"20. [Calhoun] b e l i e v e d s a i d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s 
and 
r e l i e d 
upon 
them 
and a c t e d 
upon 
them 
t o h e r 
d e t r i m e n t . 
"21. As a p r o x i m a t e 
r e s u l t o f s a i d f r a u d and  
d e c e i t , 
[Calhoun] was caused t o s u f f e r damages." 
(Emphasis added.) 
In 
t h e Marengo 
County 
a c t i o n , 
meanwhile, t h e c o u r t 
c o n t i n u e d t o e n t e r t a i n motions f i l e d by v a r i o u s p a r t i e s . 
On 
November 13, 2007, f o r example, t h e i n s u r e r f o r F o r e s t 
P r o d u c t s 
f i l e d a "motion t o e n f o r c e 
s e t t l e m e n t agreement," 
c o n t e n d i n g 
(1) 
t h a t 
i t had 
s u c c e s s f u l l y 
n e g o t i a t e d 
a 
10 
1100742 
s e t t l e m e n t w i t h Calhoun, (2) t h a t i t had m a i l e d a check and 
an 
a g r e e m e n t / r e l e a s e 
t o 
Calhoun's 
c o u n s e l , 
but 
(3) 
t h a t 
the 
a g r e e m e n t / r e l e a s e had not been e x e c u t e d , d e s p i t e the passage 
of more than a month. 
In W i l c o x County, b o t h L i n d e n and A t t e n t a u n s u c c e s s f u l l y 
moved t o d i s m i s s the W i l c o x County a c t i o n , c o n t e n d i n g , 
among 
o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t the W i l c o x 
C i r c u i t C o u r t l a c k e d 
s u b j e c t -
m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over the d i s p u t e , because, t h e y argued, 
i t s 
r e s o l u t i o n t u r n e d on the c o n s t r u c t i o n and 
e f f e c t of 
the 
o r d e r 
i s s u e d 
by 
the Marengo 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t 
i n the 
Marengo 
County a c t i o n on Calhoun's w o r k e r ' s compensation c l a i m a g a i n s t 
L i n d e n . 
L i n d e n was e v e n t u a l l y r e l e a s e d from the W i l c o x County 
a c t i o n a f t e r s e t t l i n g w i t h Calhoun. 
The case was 
t r i e d t o a 
j u r y s o l e l y on the t o r t - o f - o u t r a g e c l a i m a g a i n s t A t t e n t a . 
The 
j u r y 
awarded 
Calhoun 
$3,695,298.19 
($1,695,298.19 
i n 
compensatory damages and $2,000,000 i n p u n i t i v e damages), 
and 
the 
t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment on t h a t v e r d i c t . 
A t t e n t a 
a p p e a l e d . 
I I . 
D i s c u s s i o n 
On 
a p p e a l , 
A t t e n t a renews i t s argument t h a t the 
W i l c o x 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t l a c k e d 
s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n over 
t h i s 
11 
1100742 
a c t i o n , because, i t c o n t e n d s , t h e c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e i n 
t h e 
W i l c o x County a c t i o n i s a t t h e c e n t e r o f t h e d i s p u t e i n 
t h e 
Marengo County a c t i o n . 
T h e r e f o r e , says A t t e n t a , 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
over t h e d i s p u t e l a y 
e x c l u s i v e l y i n 
t h e 
Marengo C i r c u i t C o u r t . 
We agree. 
At t h e o u t s e t , we note t h a t t h e 
Marengo County a c t i o n was  
s t i l l p e n d i n g when t h e W i l c o x County a c t i o n was commenced.
1 
T h i s was so, because t h e a c t i o n i n Marengo County 
i n v o l v e d 
m u l t i p l e 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
m u l t i p l e d e f e n d a n t s , and t h e o r d e r 
d i s p o s i n g o f t h e worker's compensation c l a i m a g a i n s t 
L i n d e n 
was not c e r t i f i e d as a f i n a l judgment. 
The absence o f a R u l e 
54(b) 
c e r t i f i c a t i o n i n such a case r e n d e r s t h e o r d e r on t h e 
worker's 
compensation 
c l a i m 
i n t e r l o c u t o r y and s u b j e c t 
t o 
m o d i f i c a t i o n a t any time b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l judgment. 
A r v i n M e r i t o r , I n c . 
v. Handley, 12 So. 3d 669, 676 ( A l a . 
C i v . 
App. 2007). 
I t i s 
w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t i f 
t h e t r i a l c o u r t l a c k s 
s u b j e c t -
m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
over an a c t i o n , 
then a l l 
o r d e r s and 
1The u l t i m a t e d i s p o s i t i o n o f 
t h e 
Marengo County a c t i o n and 
the t i m i n g o f t h a t d i s p o s i t i o n a r e 
n o t e n t i r e l y c l e a r from t h e 
r e c o r d , 
a l t h o u g h i t 
i s c l e a r t h a t t h e Marengo County a c t i o n 
was p e n d i n g when t h e c o m p l a i n t on t h e 
W i l c o x County a c t i o n was 
f i l e d . 
12 
1100742 
judgments i n t h a t a c t i o n -- e x c e p t an 
o r d e r 
d i s m i s s i n g 
the 
case 
-- 
are 
v o i d 
ab 
i n i t i o . 
C i t y of 
H u n t s v i l l e v. COLSA  
Corp. , 71 
So. 
3d 
637, 
642 
( A l a . 2011); 
B e r n a l s , 
I n c . 
v. 
 
K e s s l e r - G r e y s t o n e , 
LLC, 
70 So. 3d 315, 
319 
( A l a . 2011) . 
I t i s 
e q u a l l y w e l l 
s e t t l e d 
t h a t "'where two 
or more c o u r t s 
have 
c o n c u r r e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n , the one which f i r s t t a k e s c o g n i z a n c e 
of a cause has 
the e x c l u s i v e r i g h t t o e n t e r t a i n and 
e x e r c i s e 
such j u r i s d i c t i o n , 
t o the 
f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n 
of the 
a c t i o n 
and the enforcement of i t s judgments or d e c r e e s . ' " 
Grimes v.  
L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 
726 
So. 
2d 615, 
617 
( A l a . 
1998) 
( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B u r c h , 236 A l a . 662, 
665, 
184 
So. 
694, 
697 
(1938)). 
See 
a l s o Ex p a r t e Moore, 382 
So. 
2d 548, 
550 
( A l a . 
1980) 
(the 
J e f f e r s o n 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t 
c o u l d 
not 
e x e r c i s e 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
over 
an 
a c t i o n 
t o 
d e c l a r e 
the 
v a l i d i t y 
of 
mechanic's l i e n s where t h e r e was a l r e a d y p e n d i n g i n the S h e l b y 
C i r c u i t C o u r t an a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e the l i e n s ; the i s s u e r a i s e d 
i n 
the 
J e f f e r s o n County 
a c t i o n 
c o u l d 
be 
l i t i g a t e d 
i n 
the 
S h e l b y County a c t i o n ) ; Orton v. Cheatham, 293 A l a . 639, 
643, 
309 
So. 
2d 
94, 
96 
(1975) 
("[T]he 
c o u r t 
f i r s t 
assuming 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
of 
a cause 
... must be 
a l l o w e d 
t o pursue 
and 
13 
1100742 
e x e r c i s e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o the e x c l u s i o n of a l l c o o r d i n a t e 
t r i b u n a l s . " ) . 
A c c o r d i n g 
t o Calhoun, her 
c l a i m s 
i n the 
W i l c o x 
County 
a c t i o n 
" s i m p l y 
are 
not 
based upon 
[ A t t e n t a ' s ] 
f a i l u r e 
t o 
comply w i t h [the Marengo C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s ] June 1, 2005, o r d e r 
d i r e c t i n g t h a t [Linden] and A t t e n t a pay worker's compensation 
b e n e f i t s . " 
Calhoun's b r i e f , a t 16. 
She says t h a t the Marengo 
C i r c u i t C o u r t d i d not have e x c l u s i v e 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
of 
t h i s 
d i s p u t e , because, she a s s e r t s , the r e s o l u t i o n of her 
t o r t - o f -
o u t r a g e 
c l a i m 
d i d 
not 
r e q u i r e 
the 
W i l c o x 
County 
j u r y 
t o 
d e t e r m i n e whether she was 
e n t i t l e d t o b e n e f i t s a f t e r September 
21, 2007, the date on which A t t e n t a d i s c o n t i n u e d the 
monthly 
d e a t h - b e n e f i t 
payments. 
However, Calhoun's a s s e r t i o n s 
are 
b e l i e d by her p l e a d i n g s 
i n the W i l c o x County a c t i o n . 
As 
the 
b a s i s 
of 
her 
t o r t - o f - o u t r a g e 
c l a i m , 
Calhoun's 
c o m p l a i n t 
a l l e g e d e x p r e s s l y t h a t A t t e n t a " u n l a w f u l [ l y ] , " and 
" i n d i r e c t v i o l a t i o n of the June 1, 2005 o r d e r of the 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t of Marengo County," d i s c o n t i n u e d w o r k e r ' s compensation 
d e a t h - b e n e f i t payments " w i t h the i n t e n t t o cause [her] s e v e r e 
e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s and f i n a n c i a l e x t o r t i o n . " As the b a s i s f o r 
her 
f r a u d 
c l a i m , Calhoun quoted from 
the Marengo 
C i r c u i t 
14 
1100742 
C o u r t ' s o r d e r on the worker's compensation c l a i m and 
a l l e g e d 
t h a t A t t e n t a f r a u d u l e n t l y " r e p r e s e n t e d t o the c o u r t and 
t o 
[her] t h a t worker's compensation d e a t h b e n e f i t payments would 
be made p u r s u a n t t o t h i s o r d e r . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
The 
s t r a t e g y Calhoun employed d u r i n g the 
t r i a l 
i n the 
W i l c o x County a c t i o n r e i n f o r c e d her r e l i a n c e i n her c o m p l a i n t 
on the o r d e r on her worker's compensation c l a i m i n the Marengo 
County a c t i o n . 
For example, d u r i n g her c a s e - i n - c h i e f , Calhoun 
c a l l e d t o the w i t n e s s s t a n d T i f f a n y C a h i l l , a c l a i m s a d j u s t e r 
f o r 
A t t e n t a . 
D u r i n g 
C a h i l l ' s 
t e s t i m o n y , 
the 
f o l l o w i n g 
c o l l o q u y o c c u r r e d : 
"Q. 
[By Calhoun's c o u n s e l : ] 
... 
A f t e r the 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t of Marengo County e n t e r e d an o r d e r t h a t 
d e a t h b e n e f i t s had t o be p a i d , was 
t h a t o r d e r 
p r o v i d e d t o you? 
"A. 
[By C a h i l l : ] Yes, s i r . 
"Q. 
And 
d i d 
you 
then 
s t a r t 
s e n d i n g 
out 
checks 
p u r s u a n t t o t h a t o r d e r ? 
"A. 
Yes, s i r . 
"Q. 
So, t h e r e ' s no q u e s t i o n , you r e c e i v e d the June 
1, 2005, o r d e r ? 
"A. 
Yes, s i r . 
"Q. 
And you s t a r t e d s e n d i n g out checks p u r s u a n t 
t o 
t h a t o r d e r ? 
15 
1100742 
"A. Yes, s i r . 
"  
"Q. And a t some p o i n t , 
you s t o p p e d 
p a y i n g t h e 
c h e c k s , 
r i g h t ? 
"  
"A. Yes, s i r . 
"Q. And 
p r i o r 
t o t h e s t o p 
payment 
on 
t h e s e 
dependent 
c h e c k s , t h e payments 
t h a t you had 
made t o [Calhoun] had been made p u r s u a n t t o a  
c o u r t 
o r d e r 
i s s u e d by t h e C i r c u i t 
C o u r t o f  
Marengo County, 
c o r r e c t ? 
"A. Yes, s i r . 
"Q. And you never 
r e c e i v e d 
an o r d e r 
from t h e  
C i r c u i t C o u r t o f Marengo County 
t e l l i n g you 
t o 
 
s t o p t h e 
dependent payments, d i d 
you? 
"A. No, s i r . 
"Q. D i d [ L i n d e n ' s c o u n s e l ] e v e r 
t e l l you t h a t t h e y 
had an o r d e r from t h e Marengo County 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t t o s t o p payments on t h o s e checks? 
"A. No, s i r . 
"Q. The payments were s t o p p e d w i t h o u t an o r d e r from  
the C o u r t o f Marengo County, 
c o r r e c t ? 
"A. Yes, s i r . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
A t t e n t a ' s 
response i n i t s 
motion f o r 
a judgment as a 
m a t t e r o f law 
was t h a t " [ t ] h e c e s s a t i o n o f ... payments was 
16 
1100742 
l a w f u l 
under 
the 
[ o r d e r ] , w h i c h 
p r o v i d e d 
f o r 
[Linden's] 
s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o c r e d i t a g a i n s t i t s d e a t h b e n e f i t 
l i a b i l i t y 
i n the event of a t h i r d - p a r t y s e t t l e m e n t . 
Because the 
t h i r d -
p a r t y s e t t l e m e n t amount was g r e a t e r than [Linden's] 
r e m a i n i n g 
l i a b i l i t y , 
[Linden] 
and A t t e n t a had no f u r t h e r l i a b i l i t y f o r 
... 
b e n e f i t s . " 
(Emphasis 
added.) 
In 
s u p p o r t 
of 
t h a t 
argument, A t t e n t a c i t e d the p r i n c i p l e adopted i n t h i s 
s t a t e 
t h a t an " ' a c t o r i s never l i a b l e ... where he has done no more 
than t o i n s i s t upon h i s l e g a l r i g h t s i n a p e r m i s s i b l e way.'" 
American Road Serv. Co. 
v. Inmon, 394 
So. 
2d 361, 
368 
( A l a . 
1980) 
( q u o t i n g Restatement (Second) of T o r t s § 46 comment (g) 
(1948)). 
See 
a l s o B e l l S o u t h 
M o b i l i t y , 
I n c . 
v. 
C e l l u l i n k , 
 
I n c . , 814 So. 2d 203, 
215 
( A l a . 2001) 
("'Whatever a man 
has 
a 
l e g a l 
r i g h t 
t o do, 
he 
may 
do w i t h 
i m p u n i t y , 
r e g a r d l e s s 
of 
m o t i v e , and i f i n e x e r c i s i n g h i s l e g a l r i g h t i n a l e g a l 
way 
damage r e s u l t s t o a n o t h e r , 
no cause of a c t i o n a r i s e s a g a i n s t 
him 
because 
of 
a 
bad 
m o t i v e 
i n 
e x e r c i s i n g the 
r i g h t . ' " 
( q u o t i n g Texas Beef C a t t l e Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203, 
211 
(Tex. 
1 9 9 6 ) ) . 
I t i s a b u n d a n t l y c l e a r , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t Calhoun's a l l e g e d 
r i g h t t o d e a t h - b e n e f i t payments a f t e r September 2007 was 
the 
17 
1100742 
t h r e s h o l d 
i s s u e 
i n 
the 
W i l c o x 
County 
a c t i o n 
and 
was 
i n e x t r i c a b l y 
i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h the s u b r o g a t i o n a s p e c t of the 
June 1, 2005, o r d e r i n the f i r s t - f i l e d Marengo County a c t i o n . 
In o t h e r words, the Marengo C i r c u i t C o u r t , h a v i n g 
f i r s t 
t a k e n 
c o g n i z a n c e of the cause, had "the e x c l u s i v e r i g h t t o e n t e r t a i n 
and e x e r c i s e such j u r i s d i c t i o n , t o the f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of 
the a c t i o n and the enforcement of i t s judgments and 
d e c r e e s , " 
Grimes, 726 So. 2d a t 617, i n c l u d i n g any d i s p u t e r e g a r d i n g the 
e x i s t e n c e 
and 
l e g a l 
e f f e c t 
of 
any 
s e t t l e m e n t 
w i t h 
t h i r d 
p a r t i e s , 
such as West and F o r e s t P r o d u c t s . 
C o n s e q u e n t l y , 
the 
W i l c o x 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t 
exceeded 
i t s a u t h o r i t y i n a s s e r t i n g 
j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h i s 
a c t i o n . 
I I I . 
C o n c l u s i o n 
The c o m p l a i n t 
f i l e d i n the W i l c o x County a c t i o n f a i l e d t o 
i n v o k e the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n of the W i l c o x 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t ; t h e r e f o r e , the judgment e n t e r e d i n the W i l c o x County 
a c t i o n a g a i n s t A t t e n t a i s v o i d . 
"'A 
judgment e n t e r e d by 
a 
c o u r t l a c k i n g s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i s a b s o l u t e l y v o i d 
and 
w i l l 
not 
s u p p o r t 
an 
a p p e a l ; 
an 
a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must 
d i s m i s s an a t t e m p t e d a p p e a l from such a v o i d judgment.' 
Vann 
 
v. Cook, 989 
So. 
2d 556, 
559 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
2008)." 
MPQ, 
18 
1100742 
I n c . v. Birmingham R e a l t y Co., 78 So. 3d 391, 394 ( A l a . 2011) . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , we v a c a t e t h e judgment and d i s m i s s t h e case and 
the a p p e a l . 
JUDGMENT VACATED; CASE DISMISSED; AND APPEAL DISMISSED. 
Malone, C.J., and B o l i n , Murdock, and Main, J J . , c o n c u r . 
19