Court Opinion

ID: 9936457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:58:06.122186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:23.724810
License: Public Domain

I concur with that portion of the opinion that holds that the state law claims were preempted by ERISA. That holding is consistent with my understanding of the law since 1989. SeeHealthAmerica v. Menton, 551 So.2d 235, 249-56 (Ala. 1989) (Houston, J., dissenting). I concur in the result as to that portion of the opinion that reverses the judgment to the extent that the opinion holds that ERISA does not authorize the recovery of punitive damages or damages in excess of those provided for by the contract. Haywood v. Russell Corp.,584 So.2d 1291, 1298-99 (Ala. 1991) (Houston, J., concurring specially). I dissent from that portion of the majority's opinion that holds that the Weemses are entitled to a jury trial on claims brought pursuant to § 1132(a)(1)(B). Blake v.Unionmutual Stock Life Ins. Co. of America, 906 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1990); Ex parte Gurganus, 603 So.2d 903 (Ala. 1992).
MADDOX, J., concurs.