Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Eiland v. Meherin

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided February 21, 2003No. 1020040Published

1Concurrence

HARWOOD,

Justice (concurring specially).

I concur specially to emphasize that we are not told in this case whether the attorney for the insured received any fee out of the $100,000 advanced to his client by the insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile *1140Insurance Company. The petitioner State Farm adopts as its “Statement of Facts” the facts contained in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, which are silent on that point. Eiland v. Meherin, 854 So.2d 1134 (Ala.Civ.App.2002). Therefore, we cannot evaluate how an allocation of an attorney fee out of funds advanced by the underinsured-motorist…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Eiland v. MeherinCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API