Question

Case Study of NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company V. Barbara Walker WOOD, as administrator of the estate of D.V.G., a minor, deceased, and K.C.T., a minor, by and through Earnest T., his father and next friend. Supreme Court of Alabama

Citation: Give the full citation for the case, including the name of the case, the date it was decided, and the courts that decided it. Make sure that you included any appeals to the original court case.

Facts: Brief description of the facts only. (Minimum of five complete statements is required for credit)

Issue: What (are) is the primary issue(s) in this case? (Usually asked in question form)

Decision: Indicate here –with a “yes” or “no” – the court’s answer to the question(s) in the issue section above. Also, include the court’s conclusion (Reversed, Affirmed, Remand, etc…)

Reason:

Includes:

Rule of Law: Includes references to the relevant laws and legal principles that the Court applied in arriving at its conclusion in the case.

Application and Analysis of the Presiding Court:

Includes the “why” the court ruled the way it did- IT IS THE REASONING of the court. Try to sift out the thinking of the court in the writing of their opinion. (Reword the language of the court in your own language.) This is perhaps the most important part of the brief. (Six statements are necessary for FULL credit. Any less than six statements will receive partial credit will be given).

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1111486 Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Barbara Walker Wood, as administratrix of the estate of D.V.G., a minor, deceased, and K.C.T., a minor, by and through Earnest T., his father and next friend Certified Question from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division (Case no. 2:11-CV-03967-JHH)

Answer 1

Answer:

Citation:

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Barbara Walker WOOD, as administratrix of the estate of D.V.G., a minor, deceased, and K.C.T., a minor, by and through Earnest T., his father and next friend.

The case was decided on February, 22, 2013

The court that made the decision was Supreme Court of Alabama as per the appeal made in United States District Court.

Facts:

The representative of a deceased minor, DVG, sued Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. and State Farm since the case was on its way to be settled but the minor, DVG died after another incident and her death was not related to the first accident which was on the way to be settled. However, the company refused for the settlement of the case as the minor died and hence minor could not appear in the court that made the hearing of the case impossible. Nationwide’s and State Farm’s arguments are based on the principles of contract law, however, they ultimately failed because they are based on the unsupported premise that D.V.G.’s death makes it impossible for the settlement agreement to be submitted to the Circuit Court for approval.

However, all of the evidence necessary for a trial court to make a pro ami determination abided.

Issue:

Under Alabama law, is an insurance company bound to a settlement agreement negotiated on behalf of an injured minor, if that minor dies before the scheduling of a pro ami hearing which was intended by both sides to obtain approval of the settlement?

Decision:

Under Alabama law, an insurance company is bound to a settlement agreement negotiated on behalf of an injured minor, even if that minor dies before the scheduling of the court hearing. In accordance with the parties’ understanding, such a hearing is still required, and the minor’s death does not render the hearing impossible.

Reason: The court took the decision on the ground of evidence available to the case and the trial of the case. The court took into consideration the position of the company and the position of Wood. The company argued that the court is not in the authority of settling the case because the presence of the minor in the court is impossible because of her death. Wood, the representative of the minor, insisted that the court could take the decision on the case because all of the evidence needed for the settlement of the case has been presented. The court made the decision in favour of Woods.

Rule of law: Rule that was being applied to the case is 18, Ala. R.App. P.