Alfa Mutual Insurance v. Head

7 Citing cases

  1. Geico Ins. Co. v. Lyons

    658 So. 2d 445 (Ala. 1995)   Cited 7 times
    Extending the "made-whole" rule to subrogation claims involving property damage

    Powell, 581 So.2d at 778. In Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Head, 655 So.2d 975 (Ala. 1995), which involved nearly identical facts and concerned the same intervention issue raised here by GEICO, this Court ruled: "[W]e hold that [the plaintiffs' insurance company's] subrogation claim does not arise until the plaintiffs' recovery from all sources, including any recovery for property damage, exceeds the total of the plaintiffs' damage or loss.

  2. Ex Parte Brock

    734 So. 2d 998 (Ala. 1999)   Cited 4 times
    In Ex parte Brock, 734 So.2d 998 (Ala. 1999), this Court, in a situation similar to that presented in the present case, refused to issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to join the plaintiff's insurer because the petitioner had failed to include in the materials before us the subrogation agreement between the plaintiff and his insurer.

    "Defendant contends that Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Alabama has a subrogation interest in the plaintiffs' claims. "It was held in Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Head, 655 So.2d 975 (Ala. 1995), that an insurer did not have a right to intervene in its insured's suit to recover damages until after plaintiff's recovery from all sources exceeds plaintiff's damages. "Therefore, it appeared to this Court that Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Alabama did not have a legal right to intervene and was not a necessary party."

  3. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hugh Cole Builder, Inc.

    71 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (M.D. Ala. 1999)   Cited 3 times

    Similarly, it does not matter that the underlying insurance policy in this case covered the Davis property and that Davis also claims to have suffered damages for mental anguish. See Alfa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Head, 655 So.2d 975 (Ala.1995) (where insurer covered insured's property damage claim and the insured suffered, among other things, property damages and mental anguish, the insured was held to have no right to subrogation until the insured had recovered for all his damages). Likewise, the mere fact that Davis settled his claim with one tortfeasor does not, by itself, necessarily permit Allstate to pursue its claims against the remaining alleged wrongdoer.

  4. Byrd v. U.S.

    945 F. Supp. 968 (S.D. Miss. 1996)   Cited 1 times
    Awarding $80,000 for pain and suffering to a plaintiff experiencing extreme back pain

    VI. THE MATTER OF DAMAGES Under Alabama law, calculation of the plaintiff's loss requires the finder of fact to consider all elements of that loss, including, but not limited to, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of wages, and disability. Alfa Mutual Insurance Company v. Head, 655 So.2d 975, 976 (Ala. 1995), citing Powell v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, 581 So.2d 772, 778 (Ala. 1990). A court reviewing a verdict for compensatory damages must determine what amount a jury, in its discretion, may award, viewing the evidence from the plaintiff's perspective.

  5. Ex Parte State Farm Fire Casualty Co.

    764 So. 2d 543 (Ala. 2000)   Cited 46 times
    Recognizing that equitable principle of and requirements for subrogation could be modified by contract

    This Court granted certiorari review specifically to re-examine the rule that an insurer that has paid claims of its insured has no subrogation rights against a tortfeasor who harmed the insured until the insured is "made whole." That rule was established in Powell v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, 581 So.2d 772 (Ala. 1990), and its progeny, Sharpley v. Sonoco Products Co., 581 So.2d 792 (Ala. 1990); McKleroy v. Wilson, 581 So.2d 796 (Ala. 1990); Peck v. Dill, 581 So.2d 800 (Ala. 1991);Complete Health, Inc. v. White, 638 So.2d 784 (Ala. 1994); Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Head, 655 So.2d 975 (Ala. 1995); and Geico Ins. Co. v. Lyons, 658 So.2d 445 (Ala. 1995). The main opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case (authored by Judge Thompson and concurred in by Judge Crawley) impliedly asked this Court to review the law of subrogation as expressed in Powell and its progeny:

  6. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. v. Bennett

    483 S.E.2d 819 (W. Va. 1997)   Cited 9 times

    The factors identified above are not all inclusive. They merely provide some guidelines for the lower courts to utilize when determining whether a plaintiff has been made whole by the settlement proceeds. See Alfa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Head, 655 So.2d 975, 977 (Ala. 1995) (instructing lower courts to consider "damage to property, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss wages, and disability[.]") Quoting, Powell v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 581 So.2d 772, 778 (Ala. 1990).

  7. State Farm Fire v. Hannig

    764 So. 2d 538 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    However, in Complete Health, Inc. v. White, 638 So.2d 784 (Ala. 1994), the supreme court expanded the "made-whole" rule and applied it to an insurer's subrogation claim against an alleged tortfeasor. Thereafter, in Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Head, 655 So.2d 975 (Ala. 1995) and Geico Ins. Co. v. Lyons, 658 So.2d 445 (Ala. 1995), the supreme court further extended the "made-whole" rule to subrogation claims involving property damage. In the present case, the Hannigs and Belmore had entered into a settlement agreement, whereby the Hannigs agreed to pay Belmore $5,000 for his uninsured losses.