Court Opinion

ID: 9782947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:31:09.664129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:17.113073
License: Public Domain

WOODALL, Justice
(dissenting).
Wyeth, Inc., and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (hereinafter referred to collectively as ‘Wyeth”), argue that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama (“BCBSAL”) lacks standing to maintain this action because, according to Wyeth, BCBSAL “has [alleged] no legally cognizable injury.” Wyeth’s brief, at 27-28. I agree. Therefore, at the risk of being accused by the majority of “hav[ing] fallen into the trap of treating as an issue of ‘standing’ that which is merely a failure to state a cognizable cause of action or legal theory, or a failure to satisfy the injury element of a cause of action,” 42 So.3d at 1219, I respectfully dissent. “Because [BCBSAL] had no standing, the trial court had no subject-matter jurisdiction, and, consequently, no alternative but to dismiss the action.” State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So.2d 1025, 1029 (Ala.1999).
“ ‘Standing requires injury in fact’ to the plaintiff. Kid’s Care, Inc. v. Alabama Dep’t of Human Res., 843 So.2d 164, 166 (Ala.2002). Further, the injury must be to a ‘legally protected right.’ Id.” Wyeth’s brief, at 25-26. A plaintiff who alleges no such injury “ ‘has no standing to sue either on [its] own behalf or on behalf of a class.’ ” Kid’s Care, Inc. v. Alabama Dep’t of Human Res., 843 So.2d 164, 167 (Ala.2002) (quoting Ex parte Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 721 So.2d 1135, 1137 (Ala.1998)). Neither BCBSAL nor the majority has identified any legally' protected right of BCBSAL allegedly violated by Wyeth, and I am unable to discern any such right from the averments in BCBSAL’S complaint.
BCBSAL alleges that it honored its contractual obligations to its insureds by paying pharmacies for Duract at the time the medication was dispensed to its insureds. BCBSAL does not claim that, after the medication was dispensed, it had any legal interest in the medication or any right to control the manner in which the medication was, or was not, used. Although it alleges that it paid for Duract that was unused because of the later withdrawal of that drug by Wyeth, it does not explain how that withdrawal affected any of its legal rights. Instead, BCBSAL simply says that it wants its money back. In my opinion, more is required to allege an injury to a “legally protected right.”