Fairhope Yacht Club, Inc. v. Johns Eastern Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Fairhope Yacht Club, Inc. v. Johns Eastern Co.

686 So. 2d 1133, 1996 Ala. LEXIS 473, 1996 WL 506195

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedSeptember 6, 1996

Docket1930274, 1930857

StatusPublished

This text of 686 So. 2d 1133 (Fairhope Yacht Club, Inc. v. Johns Eastern Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fairhope Yacht Club, Inc. v. Johns Eastern Co., 686 So. 2d 1133, 1996 Ala. LEXIS 473, 1996 WL 506195 (Ala. 1996).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Fairhope Yacht Club, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Fairhope”), appeals from a summary judgment entered for Johns Eastern Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Johns Eastern”), the last remaining defendant to the underlying action. Fairhope’s claims against Johns Eastern are premised upon Ala.Code 1975, § 27-10 — 2(b), which allows parties who lose money dealing with insurers who are not statutorily authorized to engage in the insurance business, to hold an insurance adjuster who had assisted the unauthorized insurer in the performance of the insurance contract in question vicariously liable for “loss[es] arising under [the] contract ... issued by [the] unauthorized insurer.” Ala.Code 1975, § 27-10-2(b). Johns Eastern filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that § 27-10-2(b) violates both the' Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Alabama of 1901. The trial judge entered the summary judgment for Johns Eastern based solely on Johns Eastern’s constitutional arguments. Fairhope contends that the trial judge erred in holding § 27-10-2(b) unconstitutional. We agree.

In the very recent case of Custard Insurance Adjusters, Inc. v. Youngblood, 686 So.2d 211 (Ala.1996), this Court held that § 27-10-2(b) did not violate the Alabama Constitution, and in so doing it rejected arguments almost identical to those raised by Johns Eastern. The reasoning stated in Youngblood also disposes of the analytically analogous questions raised by Johns Eastern as to whether § 27-10-2(b) violates the United States Constitution.

Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of Johns Eastern is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

MADDOX, ALMON, HOUSTON, KENNEDY, and INGRAM, JJ., concur. BUTTS, J., concurs in the result. HOOPER, C.J., and COOK, J., dissent. SHORES, J., recuses.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Fairhope Yacht Club, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Fairhope”), appeals from a summary judgment entered for Johns Eastern Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Johns Eastern”), the last remaining defendant to the underlying action. Fairhope’s claims against Johns Eastern are premised upon Ala.Code 1975, § 27-10 — 2(b), which allows parties who lose money dealing with insurers who are not statutorily authorized to engage in the insurance business, to hold an insurance adjuster who had assisted the unauthorized insurer in the performance of the insurance contract in question vicariously liable for “loss[es] arising under [the] contract ... issued by [the] unauthorized insurer.” Ala.Code 1975, § 27-10-2(b). Johns Eastern filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that § 27-10-2(b) violates both the' Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Alabama of 1901. The trial judge entered the summary judgment for Johns Eastern based solely on Johns Eastern’s constitutional arguments. Fairhope contends that the trial judge erred in holding § 27-10-2(b) unconstitutional. We agree.

In the very recent case of Custard Insurance Adjusters, Inc. v. Youngblood, 686 So.2d 211 (Ala.1996), this Court held that § 27-10-2(b) did not violate the Alabama Constitution, and in so doing it rejected arguments almost identical to those raised by Johns Eastern. The reasoning stated in Youngblood also disposes of the analytically analogous questions raised by Johns Eastern as to whether § 27-10-2(b) violates the United States Constitution.

Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of Johns Eastern is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

MADDOX, ALMON, HOUSTON, KENNEDY, and INGRAM, JJ., concur. BUTTS, J., concurs in the result. HOOPER, C.J., and COOK, J., dissent. SHORES, J., recuses.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 So. 2d 1133, 1996 Ala. LEXIS 473, 1996 WL 506195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fairhope-yacht-club-inc-v-johns-eastern-co-ala-1996.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack