Court Opinion

ID: 9933464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:42:07.849232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:18.204312
License: Public Domain

But for one exception, I concur. The exception is that I express no opinion on footnote 1 to the main opinion, because neither Seafarers'Welfare Plan v. Dixon, 512 So.2d 53 (Ala. 1987), nor Hood v. PrudentialInsurance Co. of America, 522 So.2d 265 (Ala. 1988), expressly discusses the precise issue of whether the Alabama tort of bad faith constitutes a "law of [Alabama] which regulates insurance" within the meaning of the ERISA savings clause, 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(A), although a resolution of this issue may be implicit in the general holding of each of those cases that this tort is preempted by ERISA.