Ex Parte Allianz Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 05 December 2008 |
Docket Number | 1070114. |
Citation | 25 So.3d 411 |
Parties | Ex parte ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA (In re Mary-George D. Watson v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America and Jeffrey D. Fredrickson). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Michael L. Bell, Melody H. Eagan, Rachel M. Lary, and Haley A. Andrews of Lightfoot, Franklin & White, L.L.C., Birmingham, for petitioner.
Wilson F. Green and James E. Fleenor, Jr., of Battle Fleenor Green Winn & Clemmer LLP, Tuscaloosa: Harlan F. Winn III, Robert E. Battle, and Michael J. Clemmer of Battle Fleenor Green Winn & Clemmer LLP, Birmingham; and Lynn W. Jinks and Christina Crow of Jinks, Daniel & Crow, LLC, Union Springs, for respondent.
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America ("Allianz") petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the Barbour Circuit Court to vacate its orders to compel production of certain discovery documents for an individual plaintiff in a fraud case involving the sale of an annuity. The requested documents were produced in class actions in California and in Minnesota, and Allianz alleges that the documents are patently irrelevant or duplicative. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition.
In 2003, Mary-George D. Watson bought an Allianz BonusDex Elite Annuity policy for $14,397.66. She subsequently sued Allianz and Jeffrey D. Fredrickson,1 the agent who sold her the policy, in the Barbour Circuit Court, alleging fraud based on representations allegedly made to her by Fredrickson at the point of sale.
The BonusDex Elite Annuity is a deferred annuity; it begins paying a stream of payments at a point in time after its purchase. Watson alleges that she told Fredrickson that she did not understand the sales literature provided by Allianz or the written contract and that she would rely on Fredrickson's explanation of the policy. She claims that he misrepresented the terms of the policy to her. In addition to her fraud claim, Watson alleges that Allianz negligently or wantonly hired, trained, or supervised Fredrickson, and that Allianz and Fredrickson failed to procure a suitable insurance product for her. She also alleges against both Allianz and Fredrickson breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy.
Allianz is a defendant in several actions involving the same and similar annuity contracts, and, according to Allianz, Watson sought, and obtained orders in the trial court compelling Allianz to produce, documents previously produced for two of those cases, including:
Allianz filed a motion for a protective order as to the documents, which the trial court denied.2 Allianz states that the Negrete court has certified the class in a nationwide RICO class action as follows:
Petition at 3. Allianz notes that production of the documents in Negrete has resulted in over 180,000 documents produced under 143 requests, and it anticipates that production will be substantially more than one million documents, not including over 2,800 pages of transcripts resulting from 13 days of depositions. Petition at 4.
The Mooney3 action pending in the United States District Court for Minnesota is based entirely on alleged violations of the Minnesota Consumer Protection Fraud Act and on common-law unjust enrichment.4 The Mooney court certified a nationwide class consisting of:
""
Petition at 5 (quoting Affidavit of Stephen Jordan).5 This class includes approximately 337,000 members. Under Mooney, Allianz has produced approximately 70,000 documents in response to 53 requests and has produced about 8,400 pages of transcripts from 53 days of depositions and about 500 associated exhibit documents. Petition at 5. Allianz petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Barbour Circuit Court to vacate its orders compelling production here of the documents produced in the Negrete and Mooney class actions.
Standard of Review
Ex parte Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 987 So.2d 1090, 1100-01 (Ala.2007).
Allianz states the issue as:
"Whether a Plaintiff asserting Alabama fraud and other claims based on oral representations by an independent agent in the purchase of single annuity product in 2003, may compel discovery or more than one million documents and 66 days of depositions (with hundreds of exhibits), produced in two national class actions pending in federal courts in California...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte State ex rel. Ala. Policy Inst.
...set forth in the mandamus petition."). Normally, this Court would not grant relief in such a situation. Ex parte Allianz Life Ins. Co. of North America, 25 So.3d 411 (Ala.2008). This Court is applying a different rule in this case.5. This Court is addressing issues not presented.The public-......
-
K.C.C. v. C.D.C. (Ex parte Autauga Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.)
...and, therefore, we deny those three petitions. Ex parte Boone Newspapers, Inc., 337 So.3d 1187 (Ala. 2021) ; Ex parte Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 25 So. 3d 411, 417 (Ala. 2008) ; Ex parte Staats-Sidwell, supra ; Ex parte Robbins, supra. We next turn to case number 2200797, which is the......
-
Johnson v. Mossy Oak Props., Inc., Case No.: 7:11-CV-4205-RDP
...2009) (insurance company and financial adviser sued in connection with sale of financial "product"); Ex parte Allianz Life Ins. Co. of North America, 25 So. 3d 411, 412 (Ala. 2008) (annuity insurance policy); Ex parte John Alden Life Ins. Co., 999 So. 2d 476, 479 (Ala. 2008) (group health i......
-
Ex parte State Pers. Bd. . State Pers. Bd. v. Gwin, 1081436 and 1081462.
...517, 88 So. 645, 646 (1921)).” Ex parte Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 987 So.2d 1090, 1101 (Ala.2007). See also Ex parte Allianz Life Ins. Co. of North America, 25 So.3d 411 (Ala.2008). In the event that the trial court determines that the Board's motion to intervene was properly withdrawn and ......