Title: Ex parte Alfa Mutual Insurance Company.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: October 30, 2020
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2020-2021
____________________
1190117
____________________
Ex parte Alfa Mutual Insurance Company
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: Danielene Myricks
v.
Kelisha Saulsberry and Alfa Mutual Insurance Company)
(Jefferson Circuit Court, CV-18-901464)
MITCHELL, Justice.
Alfa Mutual Insurance Company ("Alfa") intervened in a
lawsuit brought by its insured, Danielene Myricks, against
1190117
Kelisha Saulsberry, an uninsured motorist.  Two weeks before
the scheduled trial, Alfa moved to opt out of the lawsuit,
citing Lowe v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 521 So. 2d 1309 (Ala.
1988).  The Jefferson Circuit Court issued an order granting
that motion, but it later vacated its order and required Alfa
to continue participating in the case as a named defendant. 
Alfa now asks this Court to direct the trial court to allow it
to opt out.  Because Alfa has not established a clear legal
right to intervene in the lawsuit and then opt out before
trial, we deny Alfa's petition.
Facts and Procedural History
Myricks sued Saulsberry for allegedly causing an April
2016 motor-vehicle accident in Birmingham.  Saulsberry was
uninsured when the accident occurred, and she retained Legal
Services Alabama to defend her in the lawsuit.  
Myricks was insured by Alfa at the time, and her policy
included uninsured-motorist benefits.  She did not name Alfa
as a defendant, but she did notify Alfa of the filing of the
lawsuit. Alfa then filed a motion to intervene.  In that
motion, Alfa stated that there was a "possibility that prior
to trial, [it] will opt out of the lawsuit."  Myricks did not
2
1190117
object to Alfa's intervention generally, but she did object to
Alfa's apparent attempt to reserve the right to later opt out
of the case.  In her opposition to Alfa's motion to intervene,
Myricks argued that, "[b]y the plain language of Lowe, Alfa
may not intervene and then later opt out."  The trial court
allowed Alfa to intervene but acknowledged Myricks's right to
"renew her objection on the stated grounds if and when Alfa
attempts to later opt out of this case." 
About two weeks before trial was scheduled to begin, Alfa
filed a motion to opt out of the case, which the trial court
granted the same day.  The next day, Saulsberry's counsel
filed a motion to withdraw, noting that new attorneys would
represent her going forward.  Myricks then asked the trial
court to vacate its order allowing Alfa to opt out.  The trial
court granted Myricks's motion to vacate, holding that "Alfa
is once again a named Defendant in this case and shall
participate in trial ...."  Alfa then filed its petition in
this Court.1
1Myricks opposes the petition; Alfa has not filed a reply.
3
1190117
Standard of Review
"A petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate
means for challenging a trial court's refusal to grant [an
uninsured-motorist] carrier the right to opt out 
of 
litigation
pursuant to Lowe."  Ex parte Geico Cas. Co., 58 So. 3d 741,
743 (Ala. 2010).  "[M]andamus is a drastic and extraordinary
writ" that should be issued only where there is: "(1) a clear
legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an
imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by
a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy;
and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court."  Ex parte
Edgar, 543 So. 2d 682, 684 (Ala. 1989).  As the petitioner,
Alfa bears the burden of establishing a clear legal right to
the relief it seeks.  Ex parte Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins.
Co., 974 So. 2d 967, 972 (Ala. 2007).
Analysis
Alfa asks this Court to "issue a writ allowing [it] to
opt out of participation of trial, and further allow [its]
Counsel to defend [Saulsberry] at trial."  Alfa's petition, p.
22.  Because Alfa's second request hinges on whether it may
4
1190117
opt out of the lawsuit,2 we first consider whether Alfa has
met its burden of establishing a clear legal right to opt out
after intervening in the lawsuit.  We hold that Alfa has not
met its burden and, thus, deny the petition. 
In Lowe, this Court addressed for the first time whether
an insured motorist may file a claim against his or her
liability provider in an underlying lawsuit against the
negligent, underinsured motorist.  This Court answered that
question by establishing the following procedure:
"A plaintiff is allowed either to join as a party
defendant his own liability insurer in a suit
against the underinsured motorist or merely to give
it notice of the filing of the action against the
motorist and of the possibility of a claim under the
underinsured motorist coverage at the conclusion of
the trial.  If the insurer is named as a party, it
would have the right, within a reasonable time after
service of process, to elect either to participate
in the trial (in which case its identity and the
reason for its being involved are proper information
for the jury), or not to participate in the trial
(in which case no mention of it or its potential
involvement is permitted by the trial court). Under
either election, the insurer would be bound by the
factfinder's decisions on the issues of liability
and damages.  If the insurer is not joined but
2See Driver v. National Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 658 So. 2d
390, 395 (Ala. 1995) ("Understanding the need for the
uninsured 
motorist 
insurance 
carrier 
to 
protect 
its 
interests,
we hold that once the carrier opts out of the trial under
Lowe, it may, in its discretion, hire an attorney to represent
the uninsured motorist defendant.").
5
1190117
merely is given notice of the filing of the action,
it can decide either to intervene or to stay out of
the case.  The results of either choice parallel
those set out above -- where the insurer is joined
as a party defendant.  Whether the choice is timely
made is left to the discretion of the trial court,
to be judged according to the posture of the case."
Lowe, 521 So. 2d at 1310.3  
According to Alfa, this passage means that, once a
nonparty insurer decides to intervene in a case, "Lowe would
apply as if the insurer was originally named in the suit,
meaning the insurer would still have the choice on whether to
participate or not participate in the trial."  Alfa's
petition, pp. 12-13.  Specifically, Alfa contends that, where
Lowe stated that the "results of either choice parallel those
set out above," this Court was "referring to an insurance
carrier's right to eventually opt out of participation from
trial." Id., p. 15. 
That interpretation of Lowe is wrong.  The error seems to
stem from a misreading of the following sentence in Lowe: "The
results of either choice parallel those set out above -- where
the insurer is joined as a party defendant."  Lowe, 521 So. 2d
3Although Lowe concerned an underinsured motorist, "[o]ur
analysis in Lowe and its progeny applies equally to
underinsured and uninsured motorists."  Ex parte Electric Ins.
Co., 164 So. 3d 529, 530 (Ala. 2014).
6
1190117
at 1310.  The "results" to which Lowe refers are whether the
insurer's identity will be made available to the fact-finder
and the fact that the insurer will be bound by the fact-
finder's findings on liability and damages regardless.  See Ex
parte State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 75, 76 (Ala.
1995) (quoting Lowe and noting that, whether the insurer is
named as a defendant or not, the insurer's identity and role
are available to the jury if the insurer decides to
participate in trial).  Thus, the word "results" does not
refer to a defendant insurer's option to opt out.
Examining the complete passage of Lowe makes this reading
even clearer.  In Lowe, this Court emphasized that a
plaintiff, at the outset, may "either" name the insurer as a
defendant "or" give the insurer notice of the filing of the
lawsuit.  Once the plaintiff makes that election, the ball is
in the insurer's court.  If the insurer has been named as a
defendant, the insurer can "either" participate in trial "or"
not participate in trial (i.e., opt out).  In parallel
fashion, if the insurer has not been named as a defendant but
is given notice that the suit has been filed, the insurer can
"either" intervene "or" stay out of the case.  In or out --
7
1190117
that is the only choice Lowe gives the insurer under either
scenario.  See Ex parte Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 708 So. 2d 156,
158 (Ala. 1998) (noting that defendant insurer's attempt to
reserve a right to opt in after opting out was "inconsistent
with the procedure set forth in Lowe"); Edgar, 543 So. 2d at
685 (stating that defendant insurer's attempt to reserve the
right to continue participating in discovery after opting out
"is just the opposite of the procedure that was sanctioned in
Lowe").  Lowe does not provide a nonparty insurer with another
election once the insurer chooses to intervene -- and Alfa
does not convincingly point to any authority that says
otherwise.4
In short, Alfa has not identified -- and this Court is
not aware of -- any binding authority giving a nonparty
insurer the right to intervene in an uninsured-motorist suit
4Alfa cites State Farm, but that case does not bolster its
argument.  In State Farm, this Court merely reiterated the
procedure prescribed by Lowe.  See State Farm, 674 So. 2d at
76 (noting that, whether the plaintiff joins her insurer as
defendant or gives it notice of the case, the insurer "is
given the option to 'either ... participate in the trial (in
which case its identity and the reason for its being involved
are proper information for the jury), or not to participate in 
trial (in which case no mention of it or its potential
involvement is permitted by the trial court)'" (quoting Lowe,
521 So. 2d at 1310)).  
8
1190117
and then opt out before trial.  Thus, Alfa has not shown that
it has a clear legal right under Lowe to opt out after
intervening, and its petition must be denied.  Because Alfa
will remain a named defendant under the trial court's order,
its request to have its counsel represent Saulsberry moving
forward is moot.
Conclusion
Because Alfa has not established that it has a clear
legal right to intervene in an uninsured-motorist lawsuit and
then opt out before trial, we deny Alfa's petition for a writ
of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, and
Stewart, JJ., concur.
Bolin, J., concurs in the result. 
9