 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
LOYAL AMERICAN LIFE INS. v. MATTIACE5/24/1996
he defendant insurance companies.
A. Right to Trial by Jury
Section 11 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 states: " he right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate." As noted by Loyal American, this Court has stated, albeit as dictum, that the Alabama Constitution "froze" the right to trial by jury as it existed in 1901. The Court has held: "It is well settled in Alabama that § 11 governs (1) those causes of action arising under the common law, and (2) those causes of action afforded by pre-1901
statutes." Smith v. Schulte, supra, 671 So.2d at 1342 (emphasis omitted). Loyal American's argument that its right to trial by jury, as defined by § 11, is violated by this Court's recognition of the tort of bad faith, is not well taken.
There are several flaws in Loyal American's argument. First, at a basic level of legal understanding, Loyal American appears to confuse the right to a trial with the right to a trial by jury. Even if Loyal American's argument, that § 11 prevents a trial by jury for all "new" common law causes of action recognized after 1901, was correct (we hold it is not), § 11 would not make the cause of action itself unconstitutional — it would make a jury trial on that action unconstitutional. Such an interpretation of § 11 would not preclude a bench trial on the cause of action, a trial where the judge rather than a jury serves as factfinder. Thus, Loyal American's argument that allowing "new" common law causes of action (such as the tort of bad faith and those noted in footnote 5) is per se a violation of § 11 is without merit.
Moreover, it is clear that the right to a jury trial protected by § 11 applies to all common law causes of action, including the tort of bad faith. Common law causes of action are those in which legal rights are determined, as opposed to equitable rights. We have previously noted the following regarding § 11's application to common law cases:
"This rule is merely a restatement of the principle declared in Thomas v. Bibb, 44 Ala. 721, 722 (1870): ' he right of trial by jury is confined to cases in which it was conferred by the common law, to suits which the common law recognized amongst its old and settled proceedings and suits, in which legal rights were to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those in which equitable rights alone were recognized, and equitable remedies were administered, or in which was a mixture of law and equity.' (Emphasis added) (citing Story on Const. § 1763; Tims v. State, 26 Ala. 165 (1855); Boring v. Williams, 17 Ala. 510 (1850))."
Henderson, supra, 627 So.2d at 884. See Finance, Investment & Rediscount Co. v. Wells, 409 So.2d 1341 (Ala. 1981). In Henderson, this Court specifically addressed the right to a trial by jury in a bad faith case:
"Judicially created causes of action, such as the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine, bad faith failure to pay an insurance claim, or willful violations of § 339 [of Restatement (Second) of Torts] are part of the warp and woof of the common law and are, therefore, inherently within 'those classes of cases in which the right [to a trial by jury as guaranteed by § 11] existed at common law.' Gilbreath [v. Wallace], 292 Ala. 267, 270, 292 So.2d 651, 653 [(1974)] (emphasis added [in Henderson])."
627 So.2d at 884-85.
Accordingly, we hold that Loyal American's right to a trial by jury, as defined by § 11 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, was not violated by this Court's recognition of the tort of bad faith.
B. Equal Protection
As noted above, Loyal American argues that allowing the tort of bad faith violates its equal pro
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|