Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
National Security Fire & Casualty Co. v. King
Citations: 621 So. 2d 250; 1993 Ala. LEXIS 320; 1993 WL 84456Docket: 1911825, 1911826
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; March 25, 1993; Alabama; State Supreme Court
National Security Fire Casualty Company appealed a summary judgment favoring plaintiffs Douglas H. King and Mary Elizabeth Hutchison following a collision caused by intoxicated driver Johnny Blackwell on June 28, 1988. Blackwell, insured by National Security, was sued by King and Hutchison for damages after failing to settle. Despite being served on December 29, 1988, Blackwell did not defend against the suit, leading to default judgments on February 8, 1989, awarding each plaintiff $20,000 in compensatory and $100,000 in punitive damages. In July 1989, King and Hutchison issued writs of garnishment against National Security, which responded by claiming it was not liable to Blackwell. National Security's claims manager, Jack G. Bronner, stated that Blackwell had not notified the insurer of the lawsuits, violating policy terms. The plaintiffs challenged the sufficiency of this response, leading to a consolidated case in 1990. On August 27, 1991, King and Hutchison moved for summary judgment, supported by affidavits, including one from Blackwell noting he had informed National Security of the lawsuit. National Security opposed the motion, asserting it was not liable due to Blackwell's failure to notify them of the legal proceedings. The trial court reviewed all submitted materials and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, rejecting National Security's claim that material facts existed regarding its indebtedness to Blackwell. The plaintiffs maintained that Bronner’s affidavit was inadmissible since it did not include the relevant insurance policy. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact, allowing the moving party to receive a judgment as a matter of law, as outlined in Rule 56, A.R.Civ. P. The reviewing court must view evidence favorably for the nonmovant and resolve doubts against the moving party. The court's examination is confined to the factors presented during the trial court's ruling on the summary judgment motion, although its reasoning is not limited to the trial court's. Once the moving party establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact with "substantial evidence," as required for actions filed after June 11, 1987. This substantial evidence must be of a quality that allows reasonable inferences from fair-minded individuals. Affidavits submitted must be admissible at trial, and objections to the admissibility must be raised with the trial court. National Security argued that the plaintiffs did not object to Bronner's affidavit during the summary judgment proceedings, but the court disagreed, noting that objections were raised in related garnishment proceedings. The plaintiffs preserved their objection to the affidavit for appeal. Affidavits must provide sufficient factual evidence to support any conclusions and should ideally include copies of referenced documents. The trial court relied on all evidence presented, including oral arguments and submissions, affirming that the insurance company was notified of the lawsuit against its insured, resulting in an affirmation of the summary judgment.