Opinion ID: 1642012
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mrs Warren's Claims

Text: Mrs. Warren alleges that she was a third-party beneficiary of the interim management agreement entered into by Tricare and ReLife. [3] As Mrs. Warren affirmatively states in her complaint, she was a creditor of Tricare when ReLife and Tricare entered into the interim management agreement, as was alleged in the third-party complaint. `To recover under a third-party beneficiary theory, the complainant must show: (1) that the contracting parties intended, at the time the contract was created, to bestow a direct benefit upon a third party; (2) that the complainant was the intended beneficiary of the contract; and (3) that the contract was breached.' Ramsey, 567 So.2d at 1327, quoting Collins Co. v. City of Decatur, 533 So.2d 1127, 1132 (Ala.1988). In her complaint, Mrs. Warren alleges that she is a creditor, based on the agreement with Tricare and three of its stockholders as individuals. This agreement was executed almost two years before the date of the agreement between ReLife and Tricare, under which Mrs. Warren based her claims that she was a beneficiary. The ambiguous negative cash flow clause in the contract between ReLife and Tricare does not specifically mention Mrs. Warren, and neither Mrs. Warren nor the Tricare stockholders contend that it does. To ReLife, Mrs. Warren is only one of many creditors of Tricare that existed at the time of the drafting of the interim management agreement. Tricare has settled its dispute with ReLife, as evidenced by the release. Thus, Mrs. Warren's action as a creditor can be pursued only through an action against her guarantors or in the bankruptcy proceeding against Tricare.