Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_02-cv-02874/USCOURTS-alnd-2_02-cv-02874-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID KING, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

CIVIL ACTION NO.

02-AR-2874-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The court has heard oral argument and considered briefs and

supplementary briefs for and against plaintiffs’ motion to amend or

correct the order entered on September 2, 2005, which denied

plaintiffs’ right to depose Leigh Harrelson.

A fair reading of the complaint, as last amended and that

cannot be further amended, does not reflect the existence of a

claim of bad faith refusal to pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees

incurred after April 22, 2004, when the court first ordered

defendant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, to pay the

reasonable fees of Maynard, Cooper & Gale for their defense of

plaintiffs who were defendants in the underlying case. The court

agrees with plaintiff’s counsel that they never represented

Nationwide and are not in a conflict of interest, but the dispute

between plaintiffs and/or their counsel and Nationwide over what

constitutes “reasonable attorneys’ fees” incurred by plaintiffs

after April 22, 2004, although it may eventually require judicial

FILED

 2005 Oct-18 PM 04:02

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:02-cv-02874-WMA Document 68 Filed 10/18/05 Page 1 of 2
resolution and may form a basis for plaintiffs to claim

compensatory damages for breach of the insurance contract under

present pleadings, cannot create a new or expanded claim of bad

faith. Such “bad faith” would be the only basis for finding

Harrelson’s testimony relevant.

If plaintiffs decide to prove damages in the form of the

reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in their defense, minus what

Nationwide has paid, they must do it in the traditional way. Of

course, if Nationwide should list Harrelson as a witness intending

to offer him as an expert for the purpose of challenging the

reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees charged plaintiffs by

plaintiffs’ counsel, the court will allow plaintiffs to depose

Harrelson even after discovery is otherwise closed. 

 On the basis of the foregoing, plaintiffs’ motion to amend or

correct is DENIED.

DONE this 18 day of October, 2005. th

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02874-WMA Document 68 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 2