Alabama Supreme Court Alert - April 25, 2025

PDF

The Alabama Supreme Court issued its weekly release list on Friday, April 25. The opinions of interest to the Alabama business community include the following: 

• Ex parte Alfa Mutual Insurance Co.: This case overturns Alabama precedent that prohibited the owner of a totaled personal vehicle from recovering rental-car costs incurred while looking for a new vehicle. Alfa paid its customer for the complete loss of his personal vehicle, as well as for the costs for renting a car after the accident. Alfa sued the individual responsible for the damage and recovered its full payment at trial. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the award of rental-car costs based on Alabama Supreme Court precedent. But it encouraged the Supreme Court to modify its precedent to permit “loss-of-use” damages for personal vehicles that have been destroyed. The Supreme Court obliged. In an 8-0 opinion, the Court overruled 1950s precedent that prohibited “loss-of-use” damages for destroyed vehicles. Noting that it had already carved out an exception for commercial vehicles in 2012, the Court extended that reasoning to personal vehicles.
• Ordonez v. Capitol Farmers Market: In this appeal, the Court considered when a party must be granted more time to complete discovery before the lower court rules on a summary-judgment motion. The trial court denied a plaintiff’s motion for a continuance and granted summary judgment to the defendant, even though the plaintiff complied with Ala. R. Civ. P. 56(f)’s requirements and argued that she needed to take a deposition that was “critical” to her case. The Court held that the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying the continuance, reasoning that the plaintiff had been diligent and that the information she sought was critical because it could expose the defendant to liability.
• Ex parte City of Montgomery: In this tort case, the Court granted a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the City of Montgomery and a police officer. Because the plaintiff did not follow the Court’s direction to respond to the mandamus petition, the Court accepted the defendants’ factual assertions as true. And because those assertions showed that the defendants were entitled to immunity, the Court directed the trial court to enter summary judgment in their favor on all claims.
• Zynga v. Mills/Huuuge v. Gann: These cases applied the Federal Arbitration Act to claims against internet social-gaming companies under an Alabama statute allowing an “other person” to recover money spent on gambling for the gambler's family members. Without reaching the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims that these games amounted to “gambling,” the Court held that the plaintiffs in these cases—who did not play the games themselves—were bound by arbitration agreements entered into by the players and therefore were required to arbitrate the claims. (Disclosure: Maynard Nexsen represents one of the defendants in these cases.) 

If you have questions about these decisions or want to discuss any other matters relating to Alabama appellate law, please do not hesitate to reach out to us, or to any other member of Maynard’s appellate group.