Title: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Baggett
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1100578
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: September 21, 2012

R e l : 09/21/2012 
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 
SPECIAL TERM, 2012 
1100578 
Ex parte State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS 
(In r e : State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 
v. 
Charles Baggett) 
(Baldwin C i r c u i t Court, CV-07-900118; 
Court of C i v i l Appeals, 2100221) 
PER CURIAM. 
In December 2005, C h a r l e s B a g g e t t and Diana M o r r i s were 
i n v o l v e d i n an a u t o m o b i l e 
a c c i d e n t , as a r e s u l t of which 
B a g g e t t was i n j u r e d . 
B a g g e t t s u b s e q u e n t l y 
sued M o r r i s , who 
was 
i n s u r e d 
by Sagamore 
I n s u r a n c e 
Company ("Sagamore"). 
B a g g e t t added h i s u n d e r i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t ("UIM") c a r r i e r , S t a t e 
1100578 
Farm M u t u a l A u t o m o b i l e I n s u r a n c e Company ( " S t a t e Farm"), as a 
p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n . 
The l i m i t o f S t a t e Farm's UIM p o l i c y was 
$60,000. 
B e f o r e B a g g e t t commenced t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t M o r r i s , 
S t a t e Farm, p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o c e d u r e a u t h o r i z e d by Lambert v.  
S t a t e Farm M u t u a l A u t o m o b i l e I n s u r a n c e Co., 576 So. 2d 160 
( A l a . 1991), advanced B a g g e t t t h e sum of $25,000, t h e l i m i t o f 
the l i a b i l i t y p o l i c y i s s u e d by Sagamore t o M o r r i s , t o p r o t e c t 
i t s 
p o t e n t i a l s u b r o g a t i o n i n t e r e s t a g a i n s t M o r r i s . 
A t t h e 
t i m e 
S t a t e Farm advanced t h e $25,000 
t o B a g g e t t , 
B a g g e t t 
e x e c u t e d an agreement e n t i t l e d an "Advancement o f Funds t o 
P r o t e c t F u t u r e S u b r o g a t i o n R i g h t s . " 
S t a t e Farm o p t e d out o f t h e a c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o Lowe v.  
N a t i o n w i d e 
I n s u r a n c e 
Co., 
521 
So. 
2d 
1309 
( A l a . 1988) 
. 
F o l l o w i n g a j u r y 
t r i a l , B a g g e t t o b t a i n e d a judgment a g a i n s t 
M o r r i s 
f o r $181,046. 
T h e r e f o r e , B a g g e t t was 
e n t i t l e d t o 
$85,000--the t o t a l o f t h e l i m i t s o f b o t h t h e Sagamore 
p o l i c y 
($25,000) and t h e S t a t e Farm p o l i c y ($60,000). 
Sagamore p a i d 
$25,000; S t a t e Farm, r a t h e r than p a y i n g B a g g e t t $35,000 and 
r e c e i v i n g 
c r e d i t 
p u r s u a n t 
t o t h e "Advancement 
of Funds" 
agreement f o r t h e $25,000 i t had advanced, m i s t a k e n l y p a i d 
$60,000, r e s u l t i n g i n an overpayment t o B a g g e t t o f $25,000. 
2 
1100578 
As a 
r e s u l t 
of t h e overpayment, t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
o r d e r e d 
B a g g e t t t o r e i m b u r s e 
S t a t e Farm $25,000, l e s s a o n e - t h i r d 
a t t o r n e y 
f e e under t h e common-fund 
d o c t r i n e . 
S t a t e 
Farm 
a p p e a l e d . 
The C o u r t o f 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s 
a f f i r m e d t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s judgment, w i t h o u t an o p i n i o n . 
S t a t e Farm Mut. Auto. 
Ins. 
Co. v. B a g g e t t (No. 2100221, Feb. 4, 2011), 
So. 3d 
( A l a . 
C i v . App. 2011) 
( t a b l e ) . 
S t a t e Farm p e t i t i o n e d 
t h i s C o u r t f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i , w h i c h we 
g r a n t e d . 
Both p a r t i e s ' arguments assume t h a t t h i s case i n v o l v e s 
the 
a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e common-fund 
d o c t r i n e . 
T h i s 
C o u r t , 
however, has d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h i s case i s s i m p l y one i n w h i c h 
an i n s u r e r i n a d v e r t e n t l y p a i d $25,000 i n e x c e s s of i t s p o l i c y 
l i m i t s , and t h e i n s u r e r i s e n t i t l e d t o a r e f u n d of t h a t e x c e s s 
amount. 
I f an a t t o r n e y f e e was due B a g g e t t ' s a t t o r n e y 
w i t h 
r e s p e c t t o a l l or p a r t of the $85,000 a c t u a l l y owed i n t h e 
a g g r e g a t e by Sagamore and S t a t e Farm, then t h e f e e s h o u l d be 
t a k e n 
from the $85,000, not from the $25,000 
S t a t e 
Farm 
o v e r p a i d and as t o which i t i s e n t i t l e d t o be 
r e i m b u r s e d . 
B a g g e t t 
o b t a i n e d 
a judgment 
a g a i n s t 
M o r r i s 
f o r $181,046. 
Sagamore 
p a i d $25,000, t h e l i m i t o f i t s i n s u r e d ' s 
p o l i c y . 
I n c l u d i n g t h e $25,000 
S t a t e Farm had advanced t o 
B a g g e t t , 
3 
1100578 
S t a t e Farm p a i d $85,000, $25,000 more than i t s p o l i c y l i m i t of 
$60,000. Thus, S t a t e Farm i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e reimbursement of 
i t s overpayment. Because we c o n c l u d e t h a t S t a t e Farm o v e r p a i d 
B a g g e t t , we r e v e r s e the judgment of t h e C o u r t of C i v i l A p p e a l s 
and remand t h e case t o t h a t c o u r t f o r i t , i n t u r n , t o remand 
the case t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
o r d e r B a g g e t t t o r e i m b u r s e S t a t e Farm t h e amount o f 
$25,000. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
Malone, 
C.J., 
and 
W o o d a l l , 
S t u a r t , 
B o l i n , 
P a r k e r , 
Murdock, Shaw, Main, and Wise, J J . , c o n c u r . 
4