Peacock v. Cincinnati Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
LYONS, Justice.
The Cincinnati Insurance Company (“Cincinnati”), the defendant in a putative class action filed by Ray Peacock, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this Court direct the trial court to dismiss Peacock’s claims against Cincinnati because, Cincinnati argues, the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and Peacock failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We grant the petition and issue the writ.
Factual Background and Procedural History
The Motor Vehicle Safety-Responsibility Act, § 32-7-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, provides that motor-vehicle…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Ex Parte Integon Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1995
- Patterson v. Gladwin Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2002
- Ex Parte Perfection Siding, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2003
- League of Women Voters v. RenfroSupreme Court of Alabama · 1974
- City of Bessemer v. McClainSupreme Court of Alabama · 2006
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Tinney v. East Alabama Medical CenterSupreme Court of Alabama · 2012
- Ex parte Edgetech I.G., Inc. n/k/a Quanex I.G. Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2014
- Northwest Alabama Treatment Center, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Mental HealthCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2016
- Speer v. Quality Carriers, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2015
- Ex parte Interstate Freight USA, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2016
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.