Ex Parte a & B Transport, Inc.
Decision Date | 28 December 2007 |
Docket Number | 1060310. |
Citation | 8 So.3d 924 |
Parties | Ex parte A & B TRANSPORT, INC., and James Allemang. (In re Henry Graben, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Una J. Graben, deceased v. A & B Transport, Inc., and James Allemang). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Shane M. Oncale and Cynthia N. Williams of Clark, Oncale, Hair & Smith, PC, Birmingham, for petitioners.
William W. Smith, Nicole L. Judge, and W. Cone Owen, Jr., of Smith & Alspaugh, P.C., Birmingham, for respondent.
A & B Transport, Inc., a Louisiana corporation, and James Allemang petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Calhoun Circuit Court to vacate its order granting relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., and to enter an order denying such relief. We grant the petition and issue the writ.
In November 1999, a vehicle occupied by Henry Graben and his wife, Una J. Graben, collided with a tractor-trailer rig operated by Allemang, an employee of A & B. Una died as a result of the collision; Henry was injured. In November 2000, Henry, both in his individual capacity and in his capacity as the personal representative of Una's estate, filed an action in the Calhoun Circuit Court against A & B and Allemang based on the alleged wrongful death of Una and his personal injuries.
A & B and Allemang were insured by Legion Insurance Company, which was placed in receivership in Pennsylvania in April 2002.1 In October 2002, on the date scheduled for the trial of Henry's action, Henry, A & B, and Allemang entered into a settlement agreement on the record. The transcript of the settlement-agreement colloquy reflects that a judgment would be entered against A & B and Allemang for $750,000, but that "[e]nforcement of the judgment [would] be limited specifically to the insurance carriers that could have applicable coverage and/or the guarantee funds that may have applicable coverage." The coverage limits under Legion's insurance policies insuring A & B and Allemang exceeded the amount of the judgment. The transcript of the settlement-agreement colloquy also reflects the following discussion between Shane Oncale, the attorney representing A & B and Allemang; Henry's counsel; and the trial court:
On December 20, 2002, the trial court entered a "Consent Decree"; that order states:
In July 2003, Legion was declared insolvent. Thereafter, Henry filed a proof of loss with the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association ("LIGA"),3 which allegedly provided coverage for Henry's claims against Legion. If Henry's claims qualified as covered claims, Henry apparently would have been entitled to $150,000 per claim, or a total of $300,000, less a small deductible. LIGA refused to pay Henry's claims.
In June 2004, Henry filed a motion in the trial court to enforce the consent judgment against LIGA. In August 2004, the trial court entered an order stating that the consent judgment was binding on LIGA and that Henry could "pursue all remedies available to collect the judgment." LIGA filed a motion to quash the August 2004 order, claiming that LIGA was not a party to Henry's action that had resulted in the consent judgment, that it was not served with process in connection with the action, and that it had had no opportunity to be heard concerning the alleged settlement. In October 2004, the trial court entered an order setting aside its August 2004 order, with leave for Henry to serve LIGA with process and subsequently to request that the court readdress the issue of LIGA's liability.
On November 16, 2004, Henry apparently filed a separate action directly against LIGA in the Calhoun Circuit Court.
In June 2006, Henry filed a Rule 60(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion in his action against A & B and Allemang, seeking relief from the trial court's December 20, 2002, consent judgment. Among other things, Henry asserted as follows in his Rule 60(b)(6) motion:
(References to exhibits omitted.)
A & B and Allemang filed a response to Henry's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gillis v. Frazier
...both allege and prove one of the grounds set forth in Rule 60 in order to be granted relief under that rule.’ " Ex parte A & B Transp., Inc., 8 So.3d 924, 932 (Ala.2007) (quoting Ex parte Baker, 459 So.2d 873, 876 (Ala.1984) (emphasis added)). Given the conflicting evidence, we must conclud......
-
Caton v. City of Pelham
...have sought immediate review of the trial court's October 21, 2019, order through a mandamus petition. See, e.g., Ex parte A & B Transp., Inc., 8 So. 3d 924, 931 (Ala. 2007) (noting that "[a] petition for the writ of mandamus is a proper method for attacking the grant of a Rule 60(b) motion......
-
Price v. Clayton
...the movant, has the burden of proving that he is entitled to the extraordinary relief available under Rule 60(b). Ex parte A & B Transp., Inc., 8 So.3d 924, 932 (Ala.2007); Ex parte Phillips, supra; and Ex parte Baker, 459 So.2d 873, 876 (Ala.1984). Our supreme court has explained that reli......
-
Byrd v. Byrd
...review of a ruling on a Rule 60(b) [ ] motion.’ " Thurman v. Thurman, 74 So.3d 440, 445 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (quoting Ex parte A & B Transp., Inc., 8 So.3d 924, 932 (Ala.2007) ).With regard to his requested Rule 60(b) relief, the former husband principally argues that he presented sufficient ......