Opinion

Attorneys Insurance Mutual of Alabama, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Insurance

  • 64 So. 3d 1
  • 2010 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 299
Court
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Filed
Oct 22, 2010
Status
Published
Author
Bryan
On the bench
Pittman, Thomas, Moore, Bryan, Thompson
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.8%

recognizing that the trier of fact “is free to weigh the opinion testimony of expert witnesses, and either accept, reject or give that testimony such weight as it deserves considering the witnesses’ qualifications, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion expressed, and all the other evidence in the case, including lay testimony”

How later courts described this case

  • recognizing that the trier of fact “is free to weigh the opinion testimony of expert witnesses, and either accept, reject or give that testimony such weight as it deserves considering the witnesses’ qualifications, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion expressed, and all the other evidence in the case, including lay testimony”
  • the trial court's decision was arbitrary because it was "based only on a dispute between actuaries about loss-reserve amounts with no proof that actual harm to AIM or its insureds will result from the higher loss reserves AIM has opted to use"

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

BRYAN, Judge,

concurring in the rationale in part and concurring specially in part.

As Clare Boothe Luce said, “no good deed goes unpunished.” The State Department of Insurance (“the department”) faulted Attorneys Insurance Mutual of Alabama, Inc. (“AIM”), for establishing loss reserves that were too conservative. AIM took a conservative financial approach during a period when many other companies were reckless. Perhaps our country’s economy would be in better condition had more companies followed AIM’s conservative example. As the main opinion expounds, I do not believe that the department provided “an explanation that rationally connects the facts and the decision reached.” 64 So.3d at 20 (citing Alabama Dep’t of Human Res. v. Dye, 921 So.2d 421, 426 (Ala.Civ.App.2005)). Therefore, I concur specially in that part of the main opinion labeled “Calculation of Loss Reserves.”

As to the remainder of the main opinion, I concur in the result in that part of the main opinion labeled “Propriety of Installment Payments of Premiums.” I concur in all other respects.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.