Opinion ID: 1665333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Availability of Alternative Forum for this Action

Text: Section 6-5-430 also requires the existence of an alternative forum for the case before the case can be dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens. The defendants appear to have satisfied this element as well. There is currently pending in California a declaratory-judgment action  the First State action  involving the same insurance-coverage issues concerning the same per-crelated property damage in the same locations as those insurance-coverage issues presented in this case. Moreover, the same parties are involved in both actions, with only one exception. As noted earlier, AIGA, a named defendant in the insurance-coverage action brought by Vulcan in Alabama, is not a party to the First State action currently pending in California. Vulcan contends that AIGA could not be sued in California because California does not have personal jurisdiction over AIGA; thus, Vulcan claims, the second condition for the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is not met because there is no alternative forum for Vulcan's action against AIGA. We disagree. AIGA is a nonprofit unincorporated legal entity created to provide a mechanism for the payment of covered claims under certain insurance policies, to avoid excessive delay in payments and to avoid financial loss to claimants or policyholders because of the insolvency of an insurer.... §§ 27-42-6 and 27-42-2, Ala.Code 1975. AIGA has no connection to Vulcan or to the actions pending against Vulcan except to the extent that AIGA is deemed the insurer under policies issued by certain insolvent insurers of Vulcan. Even assuming that Vulcan is entitled to sue AIGA, and that AIGA may be sued only in Alabama, AIGA need not be sued at this time or in this action. We agree with the trial court that the addition of the AIGA in this case is immaterial and that California is an adequate alternative forum for this action. Thus, we cannot agree that the trial court exceeded its discretion by finding that the second condition for a dismissal based on forum non conveniens was met.