Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Curtis
Citation | 279 So.3d 1171 |
Decision Date | 21 December 2018 |
Docket Number | 2170907 |
Parties | GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Gainer CURTIS |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Victor A. DuBose, Daphne, for appellant.
Jeremy S. Gaddy of Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP, Birmingham, for appellee.
On February 4, 2016, Bonnie S. Busby was injured in a collision between her automobile and an automobile driven by Gainer Curtis. GEICO General Insurance Company ("GEICO") is Busby's insurer; pursuant to its contract with Busby, GEICO is required to provide underinsured-motorist ("UIM") benefits to Busby. In the summer of 2017, Busby notified GEICO that Curtis's insurer, Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate"), had offered to settle her claim for Curtis's policy limits of $25,000. In compliance with the procedure set out in Lambert v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 576 So.2d 160 (Ala. 1991), GEICO refused to consent to the proposed settlement and paid Busby $25,000.1 Busby died in September 2017.
On February 5, 2018, GEICO sued Curtis in the Mobile Circuit Court ("the trial court"), seeking as damages reimbursement of the $25,000 Lambert advance it had made to Busby. Curtis filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., or, in the alternative, a motion for a summary judgment, asserting that Busby had died in September 2017, that Busby's personal-injury claim had expired with her, and therefore that GEICO, which had sued as Busby's subrogee, could not maintain a claim against Curtis. Curtis attached to his motion the complaint, a copy of Busby's obituary, and a copy of the $25,000 check GEICO had issued to Busby. GEICO responded to Curtis's motion, relying on Safeway Insurance Co. of Alabama v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 980 So.2d 414, 416 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007), to argue that its claim survived Busby's death.
The trial court held a hearing on Curtis's motion on June 1, 2018; no transcript of that hearing was provided to this court. On June 5, GEICO filed a supplemental response to Curtis's motion; in that supplemental response, GEICO explained that it had a right of reimbursement not from Curtis but from Allstate. Contemporaneously with the supplemental response, GEICO filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint to name Allstate as a defendant, to which it attached, among other things, a proposed amended complaint; the trial court did not rule on GEICO's motion for leave to amend, and Allstate was not added as a party or served with the amended complaint.
On June 6, 2018, the trial court entered an order dismissing GEICO's complaint against Curtis. However, the trial court expressly stated in its order that it was dismissing GEICO's complaint because it had been filed outside the applicable two-year statute of limitations. See Ala. Code 1975, § 6-2-38 ( ). GEICO timely filed a postjudgment motion, in which it explained that, because February 4, 2018, which was two years after the date of the collision, fell on a Sunday, its February 5, 2018, complaint had been timely filed pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 1-1-4. GEICO's postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law; however, in an order entered on July 30, 2018, after recognizing that the postjudgment motion had been denied by operation of law, the trial court indicated that it would have denied the motion because, it stated, GEICO timely filed a notice of appeal on July 17, 2018.
Curtis's motion sought either a dismissal or a summary judgment and included matters outside of the pleadings; thus, at first glance, it would appear that the motion to dismiss was, in fact, a motion for a summary judgment. Rule 12(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.; see also Graveman v. Wind Drift Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 607 So.2d 199, 202 (Ala. 1992) (). However, more recently our supreme court has indicated that when a "trial court's order does not refer to or indicate that it considered any document other than the complaint," "refers only to [a] motion[ ] to dismiss," and "dismisses the complaint," we cannot presume that "the trial court considered the matters outside the complaint" and a "motion[ ] to dismiss [will] not [be] converted to a motion[ ] for a summary judgment." Ex parte Price, 244 So.3d 949, 955 (Ala. 2017). Thus, we will apply the standard of review applicable to a motion to dismiss.
Nance v. Matthews, 622 So.2d 297, 299 (Ala. 1993).
On appeal, GEICO raises four arguments. First, GEICO argues that the trial court erred by dismissing its complaint on the ground that the statute of limitations had expired before the complaint was filed. Secondly, GEICO complains that the trial court erred by not considering its motion for leave to amend its complaint before dismissing the action. GEICO next contends that it has a valid claim for subrogation against either Curtis or Allstate. Finally, GEICO complains that the trial court erred in denying its postjudgment motion.
The order dismissing the complaint against Curtis is, therefore, a final judgment capable of supporting an appeal. See Glasgow v. Jackson Land Surveying, LLC, 236 So.3d 111, 114 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) ( ); and Harris v. Preskitt, 911 So.2d 8, 14 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005) ( ). Regarding GEICO's argument that the trial court was required to consider the motion for leave to amend before proceeding to consider Curtis's motion to dismiss, we note that GEICO has provided no authority supporting such a conclusion and that we know of no such authority. See White Sands Grp., L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So.2d 1042, 1058 (Ala. 2008). () ; see also Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P. ( ). Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the trial court's order dismissing GEICO's action against Curtis should be reversed on this ground.
We turn now to GEICO's argument that the trial court incorrectly concluded that its claim against Curtis was time-barred. On this point, we agree with GEICO. As noted earlier, the accident giving rise to this action occurred on February 4, 2016, and the two-year statute of limitations governing tort claims applies. February 4, 2018, was, as GEICO pointed out to the trial court in its postjudgment motion, a Sunday. Thus, pursuant to § 1-1-4, which provides that "if the last day [upon which any act is provided by law to be done] is Sunday, or a legal holiday as defined in [ Ala. Code 1975, §] 1-3-8, or a day on which the office in which the act must be done shall close as permitted by any law of this state, the last day also must be excluded, and the next succeeding secular or working day shall be counted as the last day within which the act may be done," GEICO's complaint was, in fact, filed within the statute of limitations on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Corriveau v. Whitcomb
...... legal basis," GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Curtis,. 279 So.3d 1171, 1176 (Ala. Civ. App. ......
- City of Gadsden v. Billingsley
-
Cooley v. Cooley
...53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.; Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 (Ala. 1992); GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Curtis, 279 So. 3d 1171, 1176 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018); Broadway v. Broadway, 184 So. 3d 376, 385-86 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014); E.F.B. v. L.S.T., 157 So. 3d 917 (Ala. Civ. A......