Opinion ID: 1769612
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence relevant to issues previously decided by this Court upon the Hilleys' appeal.

Text: In Hilley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 562 So.2d 184 (Ala.1990), this Court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Allstate on the Hilleys' claims of breach of contract, outrageous conduct, bad-faith refusal to pay, and violation of public policy. [2] Allstate contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that it says was relevant only to the breach of contract and bad faith claims upon which this Court had previously affirmed the summary judgment. The claimed error concerns evidence of Allstate's cancellation of the Hilleys' policy after the Hilleys had failed to rebuild their house within six months, Allstate's failure to pay the Hilleys' additional living expenses, and Allstate's refusal to guarantee payment of the replacement cost balance to a contractor of the Hilleys' choice. Allstate argues that the submission of evidence relating to these events prejudiced the jury. In Sessions Co. v. Turner, 493 So.2d 1387 (Ala.1986), this Court stated: The trial court has wide latitude in regard to testimony in fraud cases because often the perpetrator is the sole possessor of the actual knowledge of the fraud. The trial court's rulings will not be disturbed on appeal unless that discretion has been abused. Id. at 1391 (citations omitted). See also Gadsden Paper & Supply Co. v. Washburn, 554 So.2d 983, 988 (Ala.1989) (although evidence may be excluded by the trial judge if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value[,] ... it is equally true that in fraud cases the plaintiff is allowed wide latitude as to the proof he may submit into evidence); Dorcal, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., 398 So.2d 665, 671 (Ala.1981) (questions of materiality, relevancy and remoteness [in a fraud case] rest largely within the discretion of the trial court and its ruling concerning relevancy must not be disturbed on appeal unless such discretion had been grossly abused). We conclude that the evidence in question was relevant not only to the claims previously addressed by this Court upon the Hilleys' appeal, but also to the Hilleys' fraudulent misrepresentation claim. The fact that this Court had previously affirmed a summary judgment in favor of Allstate on the Hilleys' claims other than fraud did not preclude the trial court from recognizing that evidence relevant to the previously decided claims was also relevant to the Hilleys' fraud claim. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that evidence of various actions taken by Allstate was relevant to the Hilleys' claim that Allstate fraudulently misrepresented the respective obligations of Allstate and the Hilleys under the insurance contract.