Titan Indem. Co. v. Riley
Decision Date | 03 July 1996 |
Citation | 679 So.2d 701 |
Parties | TITAN INDEMNITY COMPANY v. John Thomas RILEY, Jr., et al. 1940312. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James R. Shaw and T. Kelley May for Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, Birmingham, for Appellant.
Griffin Sikes, Jr., Montgomery, for John Thomas Riley, Jr. Truman M. Hobbs, Jr. of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery, for Jerome M. Wooten.
Charles L. Anderson of Parnell, Crum & Anderson, P.A., Montgomery, for Frank Bertarelli.
Titan Indemnity Company ("Titan") appeals from a judgment entered in favor of John Thomas Riley, Jr., and others in a declaratory judgment action commenced by Titan to determine its liability under an insurance policy it had issued to the City of Montgomery. We affirm.
This is the second time we have addressed issues in this action. See Titan Indemnity Co. v. Riley ("Titan I"), 641 So.2d 766 (Ala.1994). Titan I, which was released on February 25, 1994, set forth the following:
641 So.2d at 767 (emphasis added, footnote omitted).
In Titan I, Titan argued that it was not bound to defend the officers, because, it contended, "the acts of corruption that caused Riley's unlawful incarceration were not 'occurrences' that resulted from law enforcement activities and that caused 'personal injury that the insured did not expect or intend.' " Id. at 768. It insisted that "the acts were intentional wrongs that cannot give rise to a duty to defend under the policy." Id. Titan also argued for a reversal of the summary judgment on the ground that "the actions alleged in the complaint did not arise from law enforcement activities within the scope of the ... officers' duties for the City of Montgomery." Brief of Appellee John Thomas Riley, Jr., App. B., at 6 (emphasis added).
In deciding whether Titan was obligated to defend the officers, this Court set forth and construed the following provisions of the Titan insurance policy:
Id. at 768 (emphasis added in Titan I ). 1
This Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the policy provided coverage for the acts forming the basis of Riley's § 1983 action in the federal courts. Specifically, we explained:
641 So.2d at 768 (emphasis added).
After Titan I was released, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama entered a judgment in favor of Bertarelli, Davis, Jones, and Wooten as to the § 1983 claims, and in favor of Bertarelli, Davis, and Jones as to Riley's state-law claims. It denied Wooten's summary judgment motion as to the state-law claims. Subsequently, the court entered a judgment in favor of the City of Montgomery, Bodine, Mayor Folmar, and Chief Wilson as to all claims against them. From those judgments, which were certified as final judgments pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), Riley appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. (So far as the record here indicates, that appeal is still pending in that court.) Wooten sought "permission to take an interlocutory appeal" of the denial of his summary judgment motion, but the Eleventh Circuit denied it.
Meanwhile, on July 27, 1994, the Montgomery County Circuit Court entered an order in the declaratory action, holding that the policy issued by Titan requires it to indemnify the defendants Bertarelli, Davis, Wooten, and Jones if Riley's action against them in the federal courts is ultimately successful. The order stated in pertinent part:
That order was certified as a final judgment pursuant to Ala.R.Civ.P. 54(b), and Titan appealed.
Titan bases its arguments for reversal of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co.
...public policy would not prohibit coverage for insured's intentional acts where policy provides for such coverage]; Titan Indem. Co. v. Riley (Ala.1996) 679 So.2d 701, 705-707 [Alabama public policy did not prohibit enforcement of insurer's agreement to indemnify insureds against liability f......
-
Dubose v. Dubose
...continue to be the facts of the case.’ Blumberg v. Touche Ross & Co., 514 So.2d 922, 924 (Ala. 1987). See also Titan Indem. Co. v. Riley, 679 So.2d 701 (Ala. 1996). ‘It is well established that on remand the issues decided by an appellate court become the "law of the case," and that the tri......
-
Poole v. Prince
...continue to be the facts of the case.” Blumberg v. Touche Ross & Co., 514 So.2d 922, 924 (Ala.1987). See also Titan Indem. Co. v. Riley, 679 So.2d 701 (Ala.1996). “It is well established that on remand the issues decided by an appellate court become the ‘law of the case,’ and that the trial......
-
Titan Indem. Co. v. Newton
...of two opinions by the Alabama Supreme Court, Titan Indem. Co. v. Riley, 641 So.2d 766 (Ala.1994) (Riley I) and Titan Indem. Co. v. Riley, 679 So.2d 701 (Ala. 1996) (Riley II). Riley I & II arose out of a lawsuit challenging the activities of the Montgomery City Police Vice and Narcotics Un......
-
Chapter 2
...Allstate Insurance Co. v. Johnston, 339 F. Supp.2d 1191, 1195 (D. Kan. 2004). State Courts: Alabama: Titan Indemnity Co. v. Riley, 679 So.2d 701, 706 (Ala. 1996). California: Griffin Dewatering Corp. v. Northern Insurance Co. of New York, 176 Cal. App.4th 172, 97 Cal. Rptr.3d 568 (2009) (In......
-
CHAPTER 5 Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability (CGL) Insurance: Coverage A for "Bodily Injury" or "Property Damage" Liabilities
...2013); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Johnston, 339 F. Supp.2d 1191, 1195 (D. Kan. 2004). State Courts: Alabama: Titan Indemnity Co. v. Riley, 679 So.2d 701, 706 (Ala. 1996) (citations omitted; emphasis added). “Murphy involved a ‘first-party’ insurance contract, that is, a policy providing for ......
-
Does crime pay? Insurance for criminal acts.
...Co., 936 F.2d 1162 (11th Cir. 1991) (Alabama law), but note that the Alabama Supreme Court has since ruled in Titan Indem. Co. v. Riley, 679 So.2d 701 (Ala. 1996), that it is not against public policy for a public officials liability policy that expressly provided coverage for certain kinds......
-
Chapter 5
...2013); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Johnston, 339 F. Supp.2d 1191, 1195 (D. Kan. 2004). State Courts: Alabama: Titan Indemnity Co. v. Riley, 679 So.2d 701, 706 (Ala. 1996) (citations omitted; emphasis added). “Murphy involved a ‘first-party’ insurance contract, that is, a policy providing for ......