Ex parte Voyager Guar. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 September 1995 |
| Citation | 669 So.2d 198 |
| Parties | Ex parte VOYAGER GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY and Albert Benjamin Sprouse, Jr. (Re Kathy Ann ELLEN and Jackie S. WHITSON v. VOYAGER GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Benjamin Sprouse, et al.). 2940742. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Petition for writ of Mandamus to the Marengo Circuit Court, No. CV-94-069; Eddie Hardaway, Jr., Judge.
William B. Hairston, Jr. and Judith D. Holt of Engel, Hairston & Johanson, P.C., Birmingham, for Voyager Guaranty Ins. Co.
William S. Pritchard III of Pritchard, McCall & Jones, Birmingham, and B. Clark Carpenter, Jr. of Wooten, Thornton, Carpenter, O'Brien & Lazenby, Talladega, for Albert Benjamin Sprouse, Jr.
Lloyd W. Gathings II and Elizabeth H. Shaw of Edmond & Vines, Birmingham, for Kathy Ann Ellen and Jackie S. Whitson.
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus.
In June 1994, Kathy Ann Ellen and Jackie S. Whitson, purporting to act on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against Voyager Guaranty Insurance, Benjamin Sprouse, Jr., and numerous others (all referred to hereinafter as Voyager), alleging that Voyager had made certain misrepresentations concerning the purchase of credit property insurance in regard to consumer loan agreements, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that Voyager had intentionally misrepresented that the purchase of insurance in an amount equal to the "total of payments" of the loan was necessary, and that credit property insurance was actually sold in an amount that exceeded the replacement value of the insured property.
In July 1994, the trial court entered an order that "conditionally certified" this action as a class action. The trial court stated that the certification and the court's findings were "conditional pending further discovery and procedures with regard to final certification of the class," and found that "maintenance of this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, is superior to any other means of adjudicating the claims herein raised."
Subsequently, Voyager petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus, contending that the trial court's order was in error because it was issued without any notice to Voyager, without a hearing, and without any evidence being presented to satisfy the prerequisites of Rule 23, A.R.Civ.P. Therefore, Voyager requests that this court order the trial court to vacate and set aside its order of class certification.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary and drastic writ, to be issued only where there is a clear legal right to the order sought; only where there is an imperative duty upon the trial court to perform, along with a refusal to do so; and only where there is a lack of another adequate remedy. Ex parte Leigeber, 608 So.2d 404 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). Further, the writ is not to be issued unless there is a clear showing of injurious error by the trial court. Ex parte Slade, 382 So.2d 1127 (Ala.1980).
Voyager argues that in issuing its order of class certification, the court did not adhere to Rule 23, A.R.Civ.P., and it further argues that the trial court "rushed to judgment in designating the class," citing Ex parte Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 582 So.2d 469 (Ala.1991). In that case, our Supreme Court found that the trial court's "designation was made without any motion having been filed asking for the class to be designated and without any evidence being presented to satisfy the prerequisites for designation set out in Rule 23(a)." Blue Cross, 582 So.2d at 476.
Voyager argues that the trial court issued the order 19 days after the service of the complaint and before any defendant had entered an appearance. Voyager specifically argues that there was no evidence indicating that the prerequisites of Rule 23 were met, and that there was no evidence indicating that the claims of the potential class members were typical, or that the named plaintiffs would be adequate class representatives. In pertinent part, Rule 23(a), A.R.Civ.P., states:
"One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte First Nat. Bank of Jasper
... ... It is no coincidence that the Court of Civil Appeals decision in [Ex parte Voyager Guaranty Insurance Co., 669 So.2d 198 (Ala.Civ.App.1995),] came only a few months after this ... Ex parte State Mutual Ins. Co., 715 So.2d 207 (Ala.1997) (withdrawing opinion of April 4, 1997) ... Ex ... ...
-
Ex parte State Mut. Ins. Co.
... ... See also Ex parte Voyager Guar. Ins. Co., 669 So.2d 198 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) ... I concur in the reversal of the order granting the Payne plaintiffs' motion ... ...
-
Ex parte Citicorp Acceptance Co., Inc.
... ... See also, Pipes v. American Sec. Ins. Co., 169 F.R.D. 382 (N.D.Ala.1996) (stating that certifying a class without notice having been ... Crawford, 689 So.2d 43 (Ala.1997), and Ex parte Voyager" Guar. Ins. Co., 669 So.2d 198 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) ... SHORES, J., concurs ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Ex parte Prudential Ins. Co. of America
... ... actions was improper, although trial courts had, apparently routinely, been entering such orders, relying upon the authority of Ex parte Voyager Guaranty Ins. Co., 669 So.2d 198 (Ala.Civ. App.1995). These five cases disapproved of the practice Ex parte Voyager had spawned, and they required ... ...
-
Appendix A. Survey Of State Indirect Purchaser Jurisprudence and Legislation
...relief for indirect purchasers, but such claims can only be brought by the state’s attorney general. 13 6. Ex parte Voyager Guar. Ins., 669 So. 2d 198 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). 7 . Ex parte AmSouth Bank, 735 So. 2d 1151, 1154 (1999) (court issued mandamus to stay a second-filed state court cla......
-
Table of cases
...aff’d , O.J. No. 868 (C.A.) (2003), 378 Vos v. Farm Bureau Life Ins., 667 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2003), 193, 417 Voyager Guar. Ins., Ex parte, 669 So. 2d 198 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995), 401 Wakelam v. Wyeth Consumer Healthcare/Wyeth Soins de Sante, Inc., BCCA 36, ¶ 92 (Can. B.C.C.A. 2014),leave to appe......
-
Appendix A. Survey of State Indirect Purchaser Jurisprudence and Legislation
...would be outside the regulation of the Alabama antitrust statutes.”). 1151 . See ALA. R. CIV. P. 23. 1152 . Ex parte Voyager Guar. Ins., 669 So. 2d 198 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). 1153 . Ex parte First Nat’l Bank, 717 So. 2d 342 (Ala. 1997); see also Ex parte Equity Nat’l Life Ins., 715 So. 2d 1......
-
Alabama's Class Action Statute Turns 20: a Defense Retrospective
...protect the court's jurisdiction and exclude any other courts presented with similar claims. See, e.g., Ex parte Voyager Guar. Ins. Co., 669 So. 2d 198 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996) (holding that the defendant was not entitled to writ of mandamus ordering trial court to vacate conditional order of ......