Michael Sparks and Gina Sparks v. Allstate Indemnity Company

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/12/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090850 M i c h a e l Sparks and Gina Sparks v. A l l s t a t e Indemnity Company Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (CV-07-902523) MOORE, J u d g e . On November filed a complaint 12, 2007, M i c h a e l Sparks and Gina i n the Jefferson C i r c u i t Court Sparks against 2090850 Allstate I n s u r a n c e Company employee of Allstate. and 1 The Michael R o c c h i o , an Sparkses alleged, agent among other t h i n g s , t h a t t h e i r m o b i l e home, t h e p e r s o n a l contents i n mobile them home, destroyed by and an a fire, automobile owned by that A l l s t a t e had issued p o l i c i e s i n s u r i n g the p r o p e r t y , t h a t t h e y had had the the been insurance f i l e d a claim t o a l l t h e p r o p e r t y u n d e r t h e p o l i c i e s i s s u e d by A l l s t a t e , that Allstate that had "[t]he denied fire was "misrepresentation." that The Allstate pay and under § citing incendiary Sparkses Rocchio a l l e g i n g 27-12-24, A l a . claim, Code 1975, of the case to the 2007, A l l s t a t e United States claims and against and to bad p u n i t i v e damages. f i l e d a n o t i c e of District Court On removal for the December 2007, t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , d i s m i s s e d the J a n u a r y 9, 2008, t h e S p a r k s e s f i l e d an amendment t o their original complaint, inserting "Allstate Indemnity Company" i n p l a c e o f " A l l s t a t e I n s u r a n c e Company." 1 On and refusal negligence, N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t of Alabama, Southern D i v i s i o n . 20, as i t s reasons nature" b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t , f a i t h ; t h e y s o u g h t b o t h c o m p e n s a t o r y and On December 11, as in asserted or 2 2090850 negligence and bad-faith claims 2 asserted by the Sparkses a g a i n s t R o c c h i o and remanded t h e c a s e t o t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court ("the t r i a l Allstate filed an Indemnity answer allegations court"). on of January the a f f i r m a t i v e defenses. discovery motions, Company 3 9, (hereinafter 2008, complaint and denying "Allstate") the asserting order and, on scheduling as w e l l July as responses 2, 2008, and the t r i a l the case f o r a j u r y t r i a l June 22, 2 0 0 9 ; t h a t t r i a l Thereafter, on May numerous Over t h e n e x t s e v e r a l months, various objections t h o s e d i s c o v e r y m o t i o n s , were f i l e d b y t h e p a r t i e s . continued material court t o take s e t t i n g was s u b s e q u e n t l y to Discovery issued an place on continued. 1, 2009, t h e S p a r k s e s and B e v e r l y Hosmer filed a " M o t i o n f o r L e a v e o f C o u r t t o Amend C o m p l a i n t t o Add Minor as a P a r t y P l a i n t i f f or i n the A l t e r n a t i v e Motion to T h e f e d e r a l c o u r t ' s memorandum o p i n i o n s t a t e s t h a t t h e S p a r k s e s ' c o m p l a i n t a s s e r t e d two c a u s e s o f a c t i o n a g a i n s t R o c c h i o -- " n e g l i g e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n and p r o c e s s i n g o f an i n s u r a n c e c l a i m (Count I I I ) and b a d f a i t h r e f u s a l t o p a y t h a t c l a i m ( C o u r t I V ) " -- and t h a t t h e S p a r k s e s h a d amended t h e i r complaint t o a s s e r t a c l a i m of slander against Rocchio. R o c c h i o i s n o t a p a r t y t o t h i s a p p e a l ; on m o t i o n o f t h e S p a r k s e s , a l l t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t R o c c h i o were d i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e b y t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t on A p r i l 29, 2009. 2 3 See supra n o t e 1. 3 2090850 Intervene." time of The S p a r k s e s the grandchild, the ("the c h i l d " ) , personal and was that the amend t h e i r complaint had under child had that, custody at the of her whose m o t h e r i s Hosmer; t h a t i n the f i r e ; that the the Sparkses' a had insurance right f o r her l o s s . that the t r i a l asserted property covered from A l l s t a t e requested or, Sparks Jana property policies; recover Gina had l o s t child child's fire, a n d Hosmer contractual to The S p a r k s e s a n d Hosmer court e i t h e r a l l o w the Sparkses t o t o add t h e c h i l d as a p a r t y plaintiff i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , to allow the c h i l d t o intervene i n the a c t i o n as a p a r t y p l a i n t i f f . A l l s t a t e objected t o the motion. The order trial court entered mother and n e x t f r i e n d intervention Hosmer, on on the an allowing of the c h i l d , the c h i l d ' s child's to f i l e behalf. behalf, On Hosmer, a complaint November filed a as t h e 3, in 2009, "complaint in i n t e r v e n t i o n " against A l l s t a t e , a s s e r t i n g claims of breach of c o n t r a c t , r e f u s a l t o p a y u n d e r § 27-12-24, A l a . Code 1975, a n d bad faith; On she s o u g h t b o t h c o m p e n s a t o r y a n d p u n i t i v e damages. November 12, 2009, Allstate filed a motion summary j u d g m e n t on t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d b y t h e S p a r k s e s , 4 for a along 2090850 with On a brief and December 11, e v i d e n t i a r y m a t e r i a l s i n support 2009, t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n , evidentiary materials. Sparkses along contained i n the complaint order On with a response a brief and to denying the m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s and a s s e r t i n g numerous a f f i r m a t i v e December 21, t h a t , among o t h e r 2009, t h e trial things, granted f a i t h c l a i m s a s s e r t e d by t h e S p a r k s e s ; the 2010, Sparkses' the court entered Allstate's breach-of-contract Sparkses f i l e d Rule 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. summary- claim. On January a motion r e q u e s t i n g t h a t the C i v . P.; the t r i a l bad- of 24, trial pursuant court granted I n f o o t n o t e 2 of i t s b r i e f i n support judgment m o t i o n , A l l s t a t e s t a t e s : 4 an i t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n as c o u r t make t h e December 21, 2009, o r d e r a f i n a l o r d e r to the supporting j u d g m e n t m o t i o n as t o t h e n e g l i g e n c e , r e f u s a l - t o - p a y , and to 4 On December 9, 2009, A l l s t a t e a n s w e r e d the i n t e r v e n o r ' s complaint, defenses. filed thereof. that i t s summary- " S h o u l d P l a i n t i f f s e l e c t t o amend t h e i r C o m p l a i n t t o add a d d i t i o n a l p a r t i e s a n d / o r c l a i m s , t h i s D e f e n d a n t r e s p e c t f u l l y requests an o p p o r t u n i t y t o conduct a d d i t i o n a l d i s c o v e r y on s u c h new p a r t i e s and/or c l a i m s ; and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o s u p p l e m e n t i t s m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t and b r i e f i n s u p p o r t o f summary judgment." Therefore, i t appears t h a t A l l s t a t e i n c l u d e d o n l y the c l a i m s a s s e r t e d by t h e S p a r k s e s i n i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n . 5 2090850 m o t i o n on J a n u a r y 27, 2010. appeal to The S p a r k s e s filed a notice of t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t on F e b r u a r y that court subsequently t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal 16, 2 0 1 0 ; to this 5 court, p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. On a p p e a l , in entering against a the Sparkses argue t h a t the t r i a l summary Allstate. judgment Before we on can arguments, however, i t i s n e c e s s a r y c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n their address court erred bad-faith claim the Sparkses' t o determine whether t o hear the Sparkses' this appeal. R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "When more t h a n one c l a i m f o r r e l i e f i s p r e s e n t e d i n an a c t i o n , whether as a c l a i m , counterclaim, c r o s s - c l a i m , o r t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m , o r when m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s a r e i n v o l v e d , t h e c o u r t may d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t as t o one o r more b u t f e w e r t h a n a l l o f t h e c l a i m s o r p a r t i e s o n l y upon an e x p r e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e r e i s no j u s t r e a s o n f o r d e l a y and upon an e x p r e s s d i r e c t i o n f o r the entry of judgment." In Smith v. S l a c k A l o s t Development S e r v i c e s o f Alabama, LLC, 32 So. 3d 556 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t a d d r e s s e d when a R u l e 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s appropriate: On M a r c h 4, 2010, t h e S p a r k s e s f i l e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t a motion t o stay the proceedings i n the t r i a l court pending t h e a p p e a l ; t h a t m o t i o n was g r a n t e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t on M a r c h 9, 2010. 5 6 2090850 " ' I f a t r i a l c o u r t c e r t i f i e s a j u d g m e n t as f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , [ A l a . R. C i v . P.,] an a p p e a l w i l l g e n e r a l l y l i e f r o m t h a t j u d g m e n t . ' Baugus v . C i t y o f F l o r e n c e , 968 So. 2 d 529, 531 ( A l a . 2007) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . The e x c e p t i o n t o t h a t r u l e i s t h a t t h i s Court w i l l not consider an a p p e a l f r o m a j u d g m e n t c e r t i f i e d as f i n a l u n d e r R u l e 5 4 ( b ) i f i t determines that the t r i a l court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e r e i s 'no j u s t reason f o r delay.' Rule 54(b); see a l s o C e n t e n n i a l A s s o c s . , L t d . v . G u t h r i e , 20 So. 3 d 1277, 1279 ( A l a . 2009) ( ' A l t h o u g h t h e o r d e r made t h e b a s i s o f t h e Rule 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n disposes of the entire claim against Guthrie, thus satisfying the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f Rule 54(b) d e a l i n g w i t h e l i g i b i l i t y f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n as a f i n a l judgment, t h e r e remains t h e a d d i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e r e be no j u s t reason f o r delay. A t r i a l court's conclusion t o that effect i s subject t o review by t h i s Court t o determine whether t h e t r i a l court exceeded i t s discretion i n so c o n c l u d i n g . ' ) . This Court has previously held that a t r i a l court exceeds i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n t h i s a r e a when t h e c l a i m o r c l a i m s t h a t remain pending i n t h e t r i a l court present issues that are 'intertwined' with the issues p r e s e n t e d i n t h e c l a i m c e r t i f i e d as f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) . S e e , e . g . , Howard v . A l l s t a t e I n s . Co. , 9 So. 3 d 1 2 1 3 , 1215 ( A l a . 2008) ( ' I t w o u l d a c c o r d i n g l y be c o n t r a r y t o t h e i n t e r e s t s o f j u s t i c e to adjudicate these remaining claims against Gonzales and E l i z o n d o s e p a r a t e l y from t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s ; t h e common i s s u e s a r e intertwined.'). "In the i n s t a n t case, i t i s apparent t h a t a t l e a s t some o f t h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d i n the s t i l l p e n d i n g c l a i m a g a i n s t S m i t h a r e t h e same a s t h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e a p p e a l now b r o u g h t b y S m i t h and S m i t h & Weems I n v e s t m e n t s . Weems a n d S m i t h a r e business partners accused of breaching t h e same r e a l - e s t a t e c o n t r a c t , a n d , a s H a z e l d i d , Weems a n d S m i t h have b o t h a r g u e d t h a t Slack A l o s t never 7 2090850 p r e s e n t e d them w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l o f f e r i n g s t a t e m e n t o r t h e amended o f f e r i n g s t a t e m e n t f o r t h e B e l S o l e condominium development, in violation of § 35-8A-408[, Ala. Code 1975]. In Centennial Associates, Ltd., we stated that '"[i]t is u n e c o n o m i c a l f o r an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o r e v i e w f a c t s on an a p p e a l f o l l o w i n g a R u l e 54(b) certification t h a t i t i s l i k e l y t o be r e q u i r e d t o c o n s i d e r a g a i n when a n o t h e r a p p e a l i s b r o u g h t a f t e r t h e [trial] c o u r t r e n d e r s i t s d e c i s i o n on t h e r e m a i n i n g claims o r as t o t h e r e m a i n i n g p a r t i e s . " ' 20 So. 3d a t 1281 ( q u o t i n g 10 C h a r l e s A l a n W r i g h t e t a l . , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e § 2659 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ) . Repeated a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f t h e same u n d e r l y i n g f a c t s w o u l d be a p r o b a b i l i t y i n t h i s c a s e , and, i n l i g h t o f t h i s Court's s t a t e d p o l i c y d i s f a v o r i n g a p p e l l a t e review i n a p i e c e m e a l f a s h i o n , see D z w o n k o w s k i v. S o n i t r o l o f M o b i l e , I n c . , 892 So. 2d 354, 363 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , we a c c o r d i n g l y h o l d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s discretion in certifying the judgment entered a g a i n s t Weems as f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) . " 32 So. 3d a t Just case, 562-63. as i n Smith, a l l the i t i s apparent c l a i m s a s s e r t e d on b e h a l f A l l s t a t e i n the "complaint of bad f a i t h , had complaint i n the present child against of the i n intervention," including a claim a l s o b e e n a s s e r t e d by t h e S p a r k s e s i n t h e i r against A l l s t a t e . j u d g m e n t on that, a l l the The claims t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a summary asserted against A l l s t a t e Sparkses except the Sparkses' breach-of-contract remains pending i n the t r i a l court. on behalf of the child, A l l the including a 8 claim the claim, which claims of by bad asserted faith, 2090850 remain pending i n the t r i a l court. [ a s s e r t e d on b e h a l f o f t h e c h i l d ] trial court present issues that Because the "claims t h a t remain pending i n the are 'intertwined' w i t h the i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e c l a i m [ s ] c e r t i f i e d as f i n a l pursuant t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , " s e e S m i t h , 32 So. 3d a t 562, we c o n c l u d e the trial c o u r t exceeded i t s discretion that i n c e r t i f y i n g the p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d a g a i n s t t h e S p a r k s e s as f i n a l pursuant t o Rule 54(b). A c c o r d i n g l y , we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l . APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 9 Bryan, and Thomas, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.