Smith v. Smith

Supreme Court of Alabama

Smith v. Smith

551 So. 2d 1024, 1989 WL 122588

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedSeptember 8, 1989

Docket88-641, 88-782

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 551 So. 2d 1024 (Smith v. Smith) 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

Smith v. Smith, 551 So. 2d 1024, 1989 WL 122588 (Ala. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

The summary judgment in favor of the insurer, Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, Inc., and its agent, J.D. Smith, and against the plaintiffs, Roxanne Smith and Dewey W. Smith, as tenants of the insured, Shirley J. Routh, is hereby affirmed on the authority of Armstrong v. Aetna Ins.Co., 448 So.2d 353 (Ala. 1983). See, also, Ranger Ins. Co. v.Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection Ins. Co., 410 So.2d 40 (Ala. 1982). *Page 1025

As to the cross-appeal, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' motions for sanctions and for attorney fees pursuant Ala. Code 1975, §§12-19-270 et seq. Therefore, that portion of the judgment challenged by the cross-appeal is affirmed.

AFFIRMED AS TO THE APPEAL; AFFIRMED AS TO THE CROSS-APPEAL.

HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, ALMON, SHORES, ADAMS, HOUSTON, STEAGALL and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.

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

The summary judgment in favor of the insurer, Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, Inc., and its agent, J.D. Smith, and against the plaintiffs, Roxanne Smith and Dewey W. Smith, as tenants of the insured, Shirley J. Routh, is hereby affirmed on the authority of Armstrong v. Aetna Ins.Co., 448 So.2d 353 (Ala. 1983). See, also, Ranger Ins. Co. v.Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection Ins. Co., 410 So.2d 40 (Ala. 1982). *Page 1025

As to the cross-appeal, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' motions for sanctions and for attorney fees pursuant Ala. Code 1975, §§12-19-270 et seq. Therefore, that portion of the judgment challenged by the cross-appeal is affirmed.

AFFIRMED AS TO THE APPEAL; AFFIRMED AS TO THE CROSS-APPEAL.

HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, ALMON, SHORES, ADAMS, HOUSTON, STEAGALL and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 So. 2d 1024, 1989 WL 122588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-smith-ala-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack