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.
Bituminous Insurance Co. v. Mobile County Health Department
Citations: 628 So. 2d 700; 1993 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 304; 1993 WL 220619Docket: AV92000150
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; June 25, 1993; Alabama; State Appellate Court
The Mobile County Health Department (MCHD) initiated a declaratory judgment action against its workers' compensation insurers, Bituminous Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, regarding a claim from MCHD employee Mary Taylor. Liberty Mutual responded with a general denial and subsequently moved for summary judgment, asserting its insurance policy was not active when the workers' compensation claim arose. The trial court granted this motion, but did not finalize it per Rule 54, A.R.Civ.P. Following an ore tenus proceeding, the trial court ruled in favor of Taylor for benefits related to her March 15, 1990, injury and finalized Liberty Mutual's summary judgment. Bituminous appealed this decision, contending that Liberty Mutual's argument regarding the appeal's validity and notice was incorrect. The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court correctly granted Liberty Mutual's summary judgment, applying the same standard as the trial court. A summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The facts revealed that Bituminous was MCHD’s insurer until July 1, 1990, when Liberty Mutual assumed coverage. Taylor, who was injured on March 15, 1990, and later diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome, received benefits related to both her fall and the subsequent condition, with medical testimony supporting a connection between the two. Since Taylor's injuries occurred before Liberty Mutual's coverage began, the court determined that Liberty Mutual was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The trial court's judgment was affirmed. Justices Thigpen and Yates concurred.