Opinion ID: 1863497
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Affidavit of Dr. Ryan

Text: After the trial court had entered the summary judgment for Blue Cross on the bad faith claim, the Gonzalezes moved to alter, amend, or vacate that judgment, pursuant to Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., and offered with their motion an affidavit of by Dr. Robert Ryan. Blue Cross responded by moving to strike the affidavit. The trial court granted Blue Cross's motion to strike the affidavit and denied the Gonzalezes' Rule 59 motion. The Gonzalezes argue that the trial court erred in striking Dr. Ryan's affidavit. However, we do not address this issue, because the Gonzalezes' brief does not does not comply with Rule 28(a), Ala.R.App.P. The Gonzalezes' brief states as one of its issues: Did the trial court commit prejudicial error in overruling Appellants' Motion to Reconsider and granting Appellee's Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Dr. Robert T. Ryan? The Gonzalezes' brief merely cites the affidavit as if it had been admitted as evidence, but the Gonzalezes completely fail to argue why excluding the affidavit was error and they cite no authority to support their position. When an appellant fails to properly argue an issue, that issue is waived and will not be considered on appeal. Sullivan v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 656 So.2d 1233 (Ala.Civ.App. 1995), citing Boshell v. Keith, 418 So.2d 89 (Ala.1982).