Source: https://www.jeremywrichter.com/author/richterjwgmail-com/page/25/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:28:52+00:00

Document:
Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange v. Peter Grayson: When a bona fide justiciable controversy exists in a declaratory judgment action, the trial court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the coverage questions without first finding the damages issues.
While riding his motorcycle, Peter Grayson was involved in an accident with a vehicle being driven by an uninsured motorist on October 1, 2012. Rather than suing the uninsured motorist, he made a claim with his personal uninsured motorist (“UM”) carrier, which tendered the policy limits of $50,000.00. Grayson then made a claim with Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange (“PURE”), on a UM policy issued to Robert Knizley, under which Grayson’s sister Mrs. Knizley was a named insured.
Thereafter, on January 17, 2014, PURE filed a declaratory judgment complaint (under Alabama Code § 6-6-220, the Declaratory Judgment Act) against Grayson, seeking a determination that Grayson was not covered under Knizley’s policy, because PURE alleged that Grayson was not a resident of his sister’s household at the time of the accident. Grayson answered and filed a counterclaim for UM benefits, alleging that he had been a resident of his sister’s household at the time of the accident.
After undertaking significant discovery, PURE filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied, concluding that there was sufficient disputed material evidence that the matter should be put before a jury. PURE then filed a motion for bifurcated, separate trials for the claims made by PURE and the counterclaims asserted by Grayson. The parties agreed that the coverage issue should be tried first. At trial, the parties conceded that should PURE prevail in the coverage trial, the entire case would be over. A jury trial was held in January 2016, and the jury returned a verdict in PURE’s favor, finding that Grayson was not covered under the Knizley policy.
Grayson filed a motion to vacate the judgment, pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), which Grayson contended was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Grayson argued that no justiciable controversy existed at the time of the trial because in PURE’s declaratory judgment complaint it essentially had requested an advisory opinion that Grayson was not covered under the policy assuming that he recovered damages on his claims against PURE. At the time of the trial, he had not made a recovery. The trial court granted Grayson’s motion for a new trial, and further instructed that the damages issue would be tried first with the coverage issue to follow, if necessary. PURE appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama. Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange v. Peter Grayson [Ms. 1150927]. — So.3d — (Ala. Dec. 16, 2016).
In the matter at hand, it found that a justiciable controversy existed at the time PURE filed its action insomuch as PURE alleged a justiciable controversy between PURE and Grayson regarding Grayson’s status as an insured. As defined under the policy, if Grayson was not an insured, he would have no coverage and would not be entitled to benefits under the policy. Therefore, because a justiciable controversy existed between the parties, the trial court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, and did not require a finding of the damages issue prior to a determination being made concerning the insurer’s obligations under the policy.
The courts have been busy in 2016 addressing issues of discovery, and interpreting and rewriting the rules of civil procedure. Each of the below links will take you to either a case brief or memoranda analyzing these developments.
Maria Graham v. City of Talladega: An amended pleading is a nullity if it does not comply with ARCP 15, and once the original claims are dismissed, a party has 42 days from the date of dismissal to file an appeal, pursuant to ARCP 4.
Ex parte Tidra Corporation: A trial court may only require a party to submit to a mental examination under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 35, if one of parties requests such relief and demonstrates good cause.
2016 Amendments to FRCP 4, 6, and 82: A breakdown of the amendments to Rules 4, 6, and 82 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, effective December 1, 2016.
Amendments to ARCP 4: A review of the July 1, 2016, amendments to Rule 4 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ex parte North American Adjusters, Inc.: Under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 38, a jury demand is required to be endorsed, but not signed.
Ex parte Dr. Barbara Johnson: When a minor child is not a party to a custody dispute, his psychiatric records are privileged and not subject to an exception.
Guidelines for the Discoverability of Social Media Content in Civil Litigation: What social media content is discoverable, permissible methods of obtaining social media content, and authenticating social media content for admissibility at trial.
How to Respond to an Objection to Social Media Discovery Requests: Social media content is subject to discovery under the broad definitions provided in the discovery rules of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and is not usually privileged or protected by privacy rights.
ENT Associates of Alabama, P.A., et al. v. Lauryn Diane Hoke: Where a plaintiff has no bona fide intent to serve defendants at the time a complaint is filed or prior to the running of the statute of limitations, the action is not commenced and is time-barred.
Carrie Crews v. Grace Jackson: Pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 64B, when a judgment creditor has failed to contest garnishment exemption claims, a court has no discretion to determine whether to dismiss a garnishment proceeding or to modify a writ of garnishment.
On December 13, 2016, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announced the rate at which motor carriers will be required to administer random controlled substance testing on commercial drivers for 2017.
What is the random controlled substance testing rate?
Under 49 C.F.R. § 382.305, motor carriers are required annually to administer random controlled substance testing on a certain minimum percentage of its average number of driver positions. For 2017, the FMCSA is keeping the random testing rate at 25% for controlled substances, just as it was in 2016.
Per the statute, the requisite testing percentage is determined by the results of national testing surveys from prior years. § 382.305 sets the minimum testing rate at 25% for controlled substances unless at any time the data received from the surveys indicates that that violation rate (or positive test results) is equal to or greater than 1.0% for drivers tested, at which time the random controlled substance testing rate requirement will jump to 50%. The random controlled substance testing rate will then remain at 50% until for two consecutive calendar years the positive test result rate is below 1.0%, after which the FMCSA may lower the rate back to 25%.
What effect does the controlled substance testing rate have on litigation in Alabama?
If motor carriers and drivers are acting in compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and particularly 49 C.F.R. § 382.305, then you should not expect it to have any affect of litigation. However, if a commercial driver is involved in a motor vehicle accident and the motor carrier has not been compliant with alcohol and drug testing regulations, there is potential for a problem.
Alabama recognizes a claim for negligent hiring, training, retention, or supervision of an employee. To prove such a claim in the context of a commercial motor vehicle case, a plaintiff must show that (1) the commercial driver was incompetent to operate the vehicle, (2) the motor carrier was or should have been aware of the driver’s incompetence, and (3) the plaintiff was injured as a result of the driver’s incompetence.” See Gardner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 842 So. 2d 1 (Ala.Civ.App. 2002). A showing of a driver’s incompetence must be made by demonstrating specific acts of incompetence. See Lane v. Central Bank of Alabama, N. A., 425 So. 2d 1098 (Ala. 1983).
Incompetence can be shown through failed drug tests, among other things. If a driver fails a post-accident drug test and the motor carrier has been non-compliant with FMCSA random controlled substance testing, a plaintiff may be able to establish liability against the motor carrier for negligent retention of the driver. The argument would be that had the motor carrier been in compliance with the FMCSR, it would or should have known of the driver’s incompetence, arising from his use or abuse of a controlled substance.
Whereas, if the motor carrier is compliant with the alcohol and drug testing provisions of 49 C.F.R. § 382.305, the motor carrier is less likely to be liable for a driver who is involved in an accident and subsequently fails a post-accident drug test.
Photo by Raymond Clark Images.

References: v. 
 § 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 382
 § 382
 § 382
 v. 
 v. 
 § 382