Ex Parte Meadowbrook Ins. Group, Inc.
Decision Date | 21 December 2007 |
Docket Number | 1061493.,1061592. |
Citation | 987 So.2d 540 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | EX PARTE MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP, INC. (In re Charles H. Andrews v. Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., et al.) Ex parte Francis Powell Enterprises, Inc. (In re Charles H. Andrews v. Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., et al.) |
William E. Pipkin, Jr., of Austill, Lewis & Pipkin, P.C., Mobile, for petitioner Francis Powell Enterprises, Inc.
Thomas H. Benton, Jr., of McFadden, Lyon & Rouse, LLC, Mobile; and Joseph C. McCorquodale III, Jackson, for respondent.
In the current action by Charles H. Andrews against Francis Powell Enterprises, Inc. ("Francis Powell"), and Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. ("Meadowbrook"), alleging the tort of outrage, Meadowbrook and Francis Powell (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the petitioners") petition this Court for writs of mandamus directing the Clarke Circuit Court to vacate its order compelling the petitioners to produce documents from the claims file of Meadowbrook and from the litigation file of William E. Pipkin, Jr., the petitioners' attorney, which files were originated in regard to Andrews's earlier worker's compensation action against his employer, Francis Powell. We deny the petitions.
The factual allegations of this dispute as of June 23, 2005, when Andrews sued the petitioners alleging the tort of outrage, are set out in the complaint:
(Emphasis added.)
The complaint alleged that Francis Powell and Meadowbrook "refuse[d] [Andrews] temporary total disability benefits in an effort to coerce [him] into a settlement of his worker's compensation claim." According to the complaint, Francis Powell and Meadowbrook "committed the tort of outrage by engaging in an unlawful mental and financial assault on [Andrews] with the intent to cause [him] severe emotional distress." (Emphasis added.) Andrews sought compensatory and punitive damages.
Andrews served Meadowbrook with a copy of the complaint, which was accompanied by interrogatories and a request for production of documents. One interrogatory requested "the name, address and position of employment of each and every person involved in the decision to terminate [Andrews's] temporary total disability benefits in May 2005." Andrews also requested the "entire claims file relating to [Andrews's] worker's compensation claim including, but not limited to, medical records, medical bills, checks, correspondence, notes, memorandums, adjuster's notes, e-mail transmissions, all notes or entries made on any and every computer, claim notes or any other documents."
In November 2005, Meadowbrook objected to the production of its worker's compensation file, stating:
In response to the interrogatory, Meadowbrook named Pipkin as one of two persons who were "involved in the decision to terminate [Andrews's] temporary total disability benefits in May 2005."
Andrews's counsel sent Meadowbrook's counsel the following letter, dated November 4, 2005:
(Emphasis added.) According to Andrews, Meadowbrook did not respond to the inquiry regarding its intent to rely on the advice of counsel as a defense.
At that time, Andrews also served Pipkin with a subpoena seeking "[a]ny and all documents contained in [his] file pertaining to [Andrews's worker's compensation case], including, but not limited to, correspondence, notes, memorandums, e-mail transmissions, phone records, medical records and summaries, reports, or any other documents." On November 18, 2005, Andrews filed a motion to compel Meadowbrook to produce its claims file. By correspondence dated that same day from Andrews's counsel to Meadowbrook's counsel, Andrews requested a list, as contemplated by Ala. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), identifying all materials that were being withheld under a claim of privilege ("the privilege log"). On December 28, 2005, the trial court granted Andrews's motion. On January 9, 2006, Meadowbrook filed a "Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Compel and for Protective Order."
In February or March 2006, Francis Powell filed a motion to quash the subpoena to Pipkin. On April 26, 2006, after hearing oral argument, the trial court granted Meadowbrook's relief and stayed all pending production motions until the worker's compensation litigation was concluded. A final judgment was entered in that case on February 6, 2007.
Subsequently, on March 13, 2007, Andrews filed another motion, seeking an order compelling Meadowbrook to produce its claims file and compelling Pipkin to produce Francis Powell's litigation file. On April 26, 2007, the trial court scheduled oral argument on the second motion to compel for June 25, 2007. However, on May 8, 2007, the trial judge granted the motion to compel and ordered compliance within 30 days.
On May 16, 2007, Meadowbrook filed a motion for reconsideration "reassert[ing]" the arguments it "presented in its Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Compel and for Protective Order, filed ... January 9, 2006, and in response to [Andrews's] first Motion to Compel." Similarly, on May 22, 2007, Pipkin filed a "Renewed Objection to Alias Civil Subpoena for Production of Documents, Motion to Quash...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Howell v. Alfa Ins. Corp. (In re Alfa Ins. Corp.)
...in this case is reviewable because it allegedly disregards the attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., Ex parte Meadowbrook Ins. Grp., Inc., 987 So.2d 540, 547 (Ala. 2007). Further, we note that "[t]he parameters of an evidentiary privilege and, in particular, whether the law recognizes conte......
-
D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Ferrari (Ex parte Ferrari)
...mandamus petition is filed no more than 42 days after the denial of the protective order. 960 So.2d at 640.”Ex parte Meadowbrook Ins. Grp., Inc., 987 So.2d 540, 546 (Ala.2007).When the Ferrari defendants filed their “motion for reconsideration” on November 14, 2013, they also requested a st......
-
McDaniel v. SouthFirst Bancshares, Inc. (Ex parte McDaniel)
...a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the stay is 42 days. See Rule 21(a)(3), Ala. R. App. P., and Ex parte Meadowbrook Ins. Grp., Inc., 987 So.2d 540, 546 (Ala. 2007) ("[A] petition for a writ of mandamus must ordinarily be filed within 42 days of the challenged order."). On Novemb......
- Milner v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Anniston (Ex parte Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Anniston)
-
Alabama's Appellate Standards of Review in Civil Cases
...So. 2d at 813-14 ...." Ex parte Mobile Gas Service Corp., 123 So. 3d 499, 504 (Ala. 2013), quoting Ex parte Meadowbrook Ins. Group, Inc., 987 So. 2d 540, 547 (Ala. 2007). Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB, stated also that: Generally, an appeal of a discovery order is an adequate remedy, notwithstand......