Ex parte Foremost Insurance Company, [Ms. SC-2023-0759, May 10, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). In a plurality opinion, the Court (Cook, J.; Shaw, J., concurs; Mitchell, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, which Parker, C.J., and Stewart, J., join; Wise, J., concurs in the result; Bryan, J., concurs in the result, which Sellers, J., joins; Mendheim, J., concurs in the result in part and dissents in part) issues a writ of mandamus to the Clarke Circuit Court 1) directing the court to vacate its order allowing Larry Knight (“Larry”) to amend his complaint against Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) and 2) directing the court to quash service on Defendants Karen Bradford and Bradford Agency, LLC (“the Agency”).
In October 2020, Larry’s residence was damaged in Hurricane Zeta, and he filed an insurance claim with Foremost which was denied. After Larry sued Foremost, Foremost made clear early in the litigation that it did not insure the residence. Ms. *2.
The main opinion explains “‘[b]ecause mandamus review of a trial court’s ruling on a plaintiff’s motion to amend his or her complaint is the exception, not the rule, it is incumbent upon a party seeking mandamus review of such a ruling to explain why an ordinary postjudgment appeal would not be adequate.’ Ex parte Gulf Health Hosps., Inc., 321 So. 3d 629, 633 (Ala. 2020).” Ms. *10. In issuing the writ, the Court concludes that Larry failed to establish good cause because he knew or should have known the facts supporting the proposed amendment when he filed the original complaint. Ms. *13, citing Ex parte Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 212 So. 3d 915, 919-20 (Ala. 2016). Also, Foremost would suffer actual prejudice if the amendment stands because it would delay the trial and require additional discovery. Ms. **15-16.
In concluding that Karen and the Agency were entitled to mandamus review of denial of their motion to quash service, the main opinion reasons “[i]f we deny the present mandamus petition, the only other method of attack open to Karen and the Agency, with such a short period before trial, is to defend themselves at trial, obtain a final judgment, and then appeal that judgment to this Court on the ground that service was improper. It would be a waste of judicial resources to permit a full trial against Karen and the Agency only to decide on appeal that the judgment must be reversed or vacated on the basis that the judgment was void because service on them was not properly perfected.” Ms. **20-21.
Justice Mitchell’s special writing, joined by Chief Justice Parker and Justice Stewart, concurs in the analysis with respect to Foremost’s petition but would deny Karen and the Agency’s petition aimed at quashing service because Karen and the Agency “have not asked us to overrule our longstanding precedent that review by appeal is an adequate remedy for the denial of a motion to quash service. And …they have not identified any ‘matters of substantial importance,’ Ex parte Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 443 So. 2d 880, 882 (Ala. 1983), that would justify departing from that precedent.” Ms. *33.