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

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · October 22, 2010 · 64 So. 3d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4865799

## Case

- **Full name:** ATTORNEYS INSURANCE MUTUAL OF ALABAMA, INC. v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** October 22, 2010
- **Citations:** 64 So. 3d 1; 2010 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 299
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bryan
- **Judges:** Pittman, Thomas, Moore, Bryan, Thompson
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4865799

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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, an…

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4865799. Public record. Not legal advice.