From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Smith

Supreme Court of Alabama
Sep 8, 1989
551 So. 2d 1024 (Ala. 1989)

Opinion

88-641, 88-782.

September 8, 1989.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Madison County, No. CV-88-752, C. Lynwood Smith, Jr., Judge.

J. Allen Brinkley of Brinkley, Ford, Chestnut Aldridge, Huntsville, for appellants/cross-appellees.

Raymond D. Waldrop, Jr., of Smith and Waldrop, Huntsville, for appellees/cross-appellants.


The summary judgment in favor of the insurer, Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, Inc., and its agent, J.D. Smith, and against the plaintiffs, Roxanne Smith and Dewey W. Smith, as tenants of the insured, Shirley J. Routh, is hereby affirmed on the authority of Armstrong v. Aetna Ins. Co., 448 So.2d 353 (Ala. 1983). See, also, Ranger Ins. Co. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection Ins. Co., 410 So.2d 40 (Ala. 1982).

As to the cross-appeal, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' motions for sanctions and for attorney fees pursuant Ala. Code 1975, §§ 12-19-270 et seq. Therefore, that portion of the judgment challenged by the cross-appeal is affirmed.

AFFIRMED AS TO THE APPEAL; AFFIRMED AS TO THE CROSS-APPEAL.

HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, ALMON, SHORES, ADAMS, HOUSTON, STEAGALL and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Smith v. Smith

Supreme Court of Alabama
Sep 8, 1989
551 So. 2d 1024 (Ala. 1989)
Case details for

Smith v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:Roxanne SMITH and Dewey W. Smith v. J.D. SMITH and Alabama Farm Bureau…

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Sep 8, 1989

Citations

551 So. 2d 1024 (Ala. 1989)

Citing Cases

The Sanderson Group, Inc. v. Smith

"The clear terms of § 12-19-271(1) require that for an action, claim, or defense to be `without substantial…

Pacific Ent. Oil v. Howell Petroleum

The clear terms of § 12-19-271(1) require that for an action, claim, or defense to be "without substantial…