Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Epting
Supreme Court of Alabama
1DissentSee, Justice
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the trial court’s judgment against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”) in this garnishment action. The trial court entered its judgment, in part, because it found that a garnishment proceeding is an ancillary proceeding to an underlying action. While a garnishment proceeding is an ancillary proceeding as to the parties to the underlying action, Hartford was not a party to the underlying action; therefore, Hartford correctly argues that any garnishment proceeding involving it constituted a new action as to Hartford, and was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Maness v. ALABAMA FARM BUREAU, ETC.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1982
- Jinright v. PaulkSupreme Court of Alabama · 2000
- United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. AdamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1986
- Wiggins v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1996
- Rush v. SimpsonCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1979
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.