Alfa Life Ins. Corp. v. Johnson
Decision Date | 21 November 2001 |
Citation | 822 So.2d 400 |
Parties | ALFA LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. Pauline JOHNSON and Earlene Winters. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Robert W. Bradford, Jr., and Paul A. Clark of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, P.C., Montgomery, for appellant.
Charles A. McCallum III of Campbell, Waller, McCallum & Loper, L.L.C., Birmingham; and Robert G. Methvin, Jr., and James M. Terrell of McCallum & Methvin, P.C., Birmingham, for appellees.
Stephen W. Still and Lorrie L. Hargrove of Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, for amicus curiae Association of Alabama Life Insurance Companies.
The trial court entered an order on October 11, 2000, certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P. The defendant, Alfa Life Insurance Corporation ("Alfa"), appeals pursuant to § 6-5-642, Ala.Code 1975. We vacate the trial court's class-certification order and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Pauline Johnson and Earlene Winters (hereinafter together referred to as "the plaintiffs") purchased several life insurance policies from Alfa no later than 1991, several of which were an interest-sensitive policy known as the ISP601. The ISP601 was developed in 1984 to provide Alfa's customers the benefits of interest rates that exceeded the policy's guaranteed minimum interest rate. Interest-sensitive life insurance policies allow the customers to build cash values in their policies, through the payment of premiums, and through Alfa's crediting of interest on the premiums. Alfa also issued another interest-sensitive policy, the ISP611. For the purposes of this appeal, the parties agree that the ISP611 is identical to the ISP601.
Premiums paid on the interest-sensitive policies are placed into a policy-accumulation fund. Alfa charges the fund for the cost of insurance, policy fees, riders, and benefits. Interest is credited on the remainder in the accumulation fund monthly at the then current rate of interest. The value of the accumulation fund is known as the "Accumulation Value," which the policy defines as follows:
Under this definition, the only reduction provided for from the accumulation value is the "risk charge for the current month." The policy defines "Risk Charge" as follows:
The plaintiffs and other Alfa customers may choose to pay their premiums monthly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually. Alfa charges a "modal" charge or a "mode-of-payment" fee when a customer chooses to pay his or her premiums on other than an annual basis. Alfa deducts the modal charge from the accumulation value of an interest-sensitive policy. Alfa considers modal charges to be "premiums for ... benefits," and properly included in the risk charge, which is deducted from the accumulation value under the terms of the policies. Johnson and Winters have paid premiums more frequently than annually on their interest-sensitive policies, and Alfa has collected modal charges from them, which Alfa has deducted from the accumulation values of their policies.
This action was filed on April 16, 1997. Much of its procedural history is not relevant to this appeal. The plaintiffs now contend that Alfa has breached the terms of the interest-sensitive life insurance policies by charging mode-of-payment fees. In fact, in their amended motion for class certification, the plaintiffs sought certification of the following opt-out class: "Any person or entity in Alabama who has been charged a mode of payment fee by Alfa on a 601 or 611 interest-sensitive policy since 1984 to present."
The trial court held a hearing on the plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification. On October 11, 2000, the trial court entered an order certifying this case as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P., and certifying the class to include:
"All those individuals who (a) are citizens of the State of Alabama and (b) who, from April 16, 1991, up until the time of final judgment in this action, have been insured under or paid premiums pursuant to an Alfa 601 or 611 interest sensitive policy and (c) who paid premiums on a mode more frequently than on an annual basis."
Alfa appealed the class-certification order pursuant to § 6-5-642, Ala.Code 1975.
In its class-certification order, the trial court stated the "central issue of liability" in a single sentence: "If the collection of a `mode of payment' fee is not permissible under the terms of the policies, Alfa has breached its agreement with the Plaintiffs and each member of the class." While not determining the merits of that issue, the trial court indicated that it had "undertaken to study and consider the factual basis of the Plaintiffs' claims, as well as the arguments presented by the parties." The trial court also summarized the parties' arguments with regard to the mode-of-payment fee:
Although Alfa and the plaintiffs construe the term "benefit" as that term is used in the definition of "risk charge" differently, the trial court did not determine whether the interest-sensitive policy is ambiguous. The trial court did note "the Plaintiffs' position that the terms of the policies are clear and explicit." On appeal, Alfa makes a similar statement: "Alfa believes the contract is straightforward." (Reply Brief of Alfa, at 12.) However, according to the class-certification order, Alfa had suggested to the trial court that "the intent of each class member needs to be considered in determining if there was a breach of contract." Similarly, on appeal "Alfa contends that if the Court holds it must look outside the four corners of the contract to determine the meaning of `benefit,' then the intent of Alfa and each of the policyholders must be determined[,] a task which would require individual inquiries of each class member." (Reply Brief of Alfa, at 14.)
The parties agree that the trial court was required to employ the rigorous-analysis standard when deciding whether to certify a class. That standard was imposed by statute, effective May 25, 1999:
§ 6-5-641(e), Ala.Code 1975. (Emphasis added.)
The trial court certified the class pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Subsection (b)(3) of Rule 23 requires a finding "that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy."
This Court applies the abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing a trial court's class-certification order. Ex parte American Bankers Life Assur. Co., 715 So.2d 186 (Ala.1997). The trial court's certification of an action as a class action is an abuse of discretion if the parties seeking certification failed to carry their burden of producing evidence sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. Ex parte Green Tree Fin. Corp., 684 So.2d 1302, 1307 (Ala. 1996).
The plaintiffs contend that the mode-of-payment fees are not authorized under Alfa's interest-sensitive...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Jefferson Cnty. (In re Jefferson Cnty.), 11–05736–TBB.
...resorting to factual issues to determine the meaning of an agreement. Extermitech, Inc., 951 So.2d at 694;Alfa Life Ins. Corp. v. Johnson, 822 So.2d 400, 404–05 (Ala.2001). Simple as this format may sound, it is not so simple in implementation. This is due to the almost limitless number of ......
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Jefferson Cnty. (In re Jefferson Cnty.)
...resorting to factual issues to determine the meaning of an agreement. Extermitech, Inc., 951 So.2d at 694; Alfa Life Ins. Corp. v. Johnson, 822 So.2d 400, 404-05 (Ala. 2001). Simple as this format may sound, it is not so simple in implementation. This is due to the almost limitless number o......
-
McLemore v. Hyundai Motor Mfg. Alabama, LLC
...the ambiguity becomes a task for the jury. McDonald v. U.S. Die Casting & Dev. Co., 585 So.2d 853 (Ala.1991)." Alfa Life Ins. Corp. v. Johnson, 822 So.2d 400, 404-05 (Ala.2001). "`"Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the trial court to determine." P & S Business, Inc. v......
-
Fabarc Steel v. Composite Const. Systems
...of the ambiguity becomes a task for the jury. McDonald v. U.S. Die Casting & Dev. Co., 585 So.2d 853 (Ala.1991)." Alfa Life Ins. Corp. v. Johnson, 822 So.2d 400, 405 (Ala.2001). In construing indemnity provisions, "the degree of control retained by the indemnitee over the activity or proper......
-
Determining an Insurer's Duty to Defend
...construed against insurer if "circumstances surrounding the [policy] do not make the terms clear"); Alfa Ins. Corp. v. Johnson, 822 So. 2d 400, 404-05 (Ala. 2001); United States Fidelity & Guar. Corp. v. Elba Wood Prods., Inc., 337 So. 2d 1305, 1308 (Ala. 1976); see also Windt, supra § 6:2.......
-
Alabama's Class Action Statute Turns 20: a Defense Retrospective
...(Ala. 2004); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. City of Red Bay, 825 So. 2d 746, 749 (Ala. 2002); and Alfa Life Ins. Corp. v. Johnson, 822 So. 2d 400 (Ala. 2001). A number of federal courts recently have adopted a "certify now, have individualized hearings or find other solutions to managea......