This is a paid feature. Please subscribe to download the judgment. Important Paras With regard to the second alleged misrepresentation, we recognize that Dave's Cabinet did not experience any reduction in the amount of its premiums for workers' compensation insurance but, in fact, incurred increased premiums. Nevertheless, Robertson's statement that LUA's policy requirement for reporting and treating all work-related injuries would eventually reduce the cost of workers' compensation insurance coverage for Dave's Cabinet was merely an unfulfilled promise as to a future event and not a statement concerning an existing or pre-existing fact.
Rehearing Denied June 9, Robertson, of the Barbour Circuit Court, to grant its motion to dismiss plaintiff David Phillips's claim alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, otherwise known as the tort of outrage.
Phillips suffered a work-related injury while employed by M. Dixon Lumber Company, Inc. Lumbermen's Alliance, as administrator of Dixon's workers' compensation insurance plan, handled Phillips's claim for benefits. However, Phillips and Lumbermen's Alliance could not agree as to the degree of his disability and the benefits due him.
Phillips filed a workers' compensation claim against Dixon in the Barbour Circuit Court. The issue before the trial court was the percentage of Phillips's disability. On March 8,Judge Robertson entered an order granting Phillips permanent total disability benefits.
On May 20,after its post-judgment motion was denied, Dixon filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals. With its appeal, Dixon also posted a supersedeas bond in accord with Rule 8, Ala.
After the bond was approved, Lumbermen's Alliance discontinued making weekly workers' compensation payments to Phillips; those payments were his only source of income. On January 7,in M.
Thereafter, Dixon petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, which was denied on May 20, On January 21,Phillips sued Dixon and Lumbermen's Alliance, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and outrageous behavior, breach of a third-party beneficiary contract, bad faith, fraud, misrepresentation, and "prima facie tort.
The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss Phillips's complaint. The trial court granted the defendants' motion as to all counts, except the allegation of intentional infliction of emotional distress, or the tort of outrage.
Thereafter, the trial court denied the defendants' request to seek an appeal, by Rule 5, Ala. On June 22,Dixon and Lumbermen's Alliance jointly petitioned for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order requiring Judge Robertson to dismiss Phillips's outrage claim.
However, on July 20,the trial court granted Dixon's motion for a summary judgment probuild lumbermens underwriting alliance to that claim. Thus, Lumbermen's Alliance is now the sole petitioner in this Court.
The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and it will be issued only when there is "1 a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; 2 an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; 3 the lack of another adequate remedy; and 4 properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.
Additionally, a writ of mandamus will not be issued if the matter complained of can ultimately be resolved by an appeal. Ex parte Spears, So. This Court has previously granted a writ of mandamus ordering a circuit judge to dismiss a plaintiff's complaint where it was clear the petitioner had a legal right to the dismissal, but we also have denied such a writ where the facts available for review were insufficient to determine whether the petitioner had a clear legal right to dismissal of the action.
See Ex parte City of Birmingham, So. Thus, the issue we must address is whether, under the limited facts before us in this review, Lumbermen's Alliance has a clear legal right to have Phillips's outrage claim against it dismissed. Lumbermen's Alliance contends that it has a clear legal right to have Phillips's outrage claim against it dismissed, because, it argues, its cessation of weekly payments to Phillips was based on the stay of the trial court's order in Phillips's workers' compensation action; that stay was obtained when Dixon filed a supersedeas bond along with its notice of appeal.
Thus, Lumbermen's Alliance argues that Phillips's outrage count failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that it has a clear right to have the claim dismissed.
In response, Phillips notes that Dixon conceded at trial, through expert testimony, that he was at least partially disabled because of his work-related accident. Phillips argues that even if Dixon had won on appeal, that victory would have only lowered the amount of the weekly payments due him, and that Lumbermen's Alliance could not have escaped responsibility for some amount of payment during the time the appeal was pending.
Phillips contends that "Lumbermen's [Alliance] intentionally discontinued the payments in hopes that [he] would consent to a post-judgment settlement of his claim at terms far less favorable than Judge Robertson's order.
In Inmon, supra, this Court first recognized the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. We stated that in order to recover damages a plaintiff must show that the defendant's conduct was "so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.
This Court has recognized that a claim alleging the tort of outrage may be brought in a workers' compensation context.
However, in Continental Cas. This case does not involve a workers' compensation carrier's delay in paying an injured worker's medical bills, but, rather, the carrier's total cessation of its weekly payment of disability benefits to the worker; that cessation was made in reliance on a stay obtained by the worker's employer.
In Downey, an injured worker had broken his leg and suffered a permanent partial disability, yet was able to return to his same position of employment and to earn the same weekly wage as before his injury. Goodyear appealed that ruling, and this Court held that the supersedeas bond filed by Goodyear, in accordance with Ala.
It ensures that the party who has obtained a judgment will not be prejudiced by a stay of execution of the judgment pending the final determination of an appeal. Thus, in Downey, the granting of a stay to the employer upon the filing of a supersedeas bond did not alter the status quo; rather, it maintained it.
In contrast, in Phillips's workers' compensation case, which serves as the basis for his present claim against Lumbermen's Alliance, the action of Lumbermen's Alliance in stopping payment clearly disrupted the status quo, to the great disadvantage of Phillips.
However, Lumbermen's Alliance may have been acting within its legal rights when, in reliance on the stay, it totally discontinued workers' compensation payments to Phillips, if on appeal of the trial court's judgment in favor of Phillips Dixon raised a meritorious argument in support of its contention that Dixon was not obligated to pay Phillips any workers' compensation benefits.
On appeal, Dixon contested the degree of Phillips's disability and contended that "Phillips should be precluded from receiving workmen's compensation benefits because, [Dixon argued], he failed to pursue employment opportunities located for him by a rehabilitation nurse.Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance k Plan is a defined contribution plan with a profit-sharing component and k feature.
This plan has a BrightScope Rating of 84, placing it in the top 15% of all plans in its peer group. Description: Lumbermens Pro Services is a Non-profit Organization Management company located in Smokey Point Dr 5a, Arlington, Washington, United States.
Furthermore, underwriting losses and decreased investment income have significantly reduced policyholder surplus in recent years, resulting in a lower level of risk-adjusted capitalization. 11 Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance reviews. A free inside look at company reviews and salaries posted anonymously by employees/5(11). Alliance Shippers Inc. Alliant Energy Allied Exhaust Systems Inc. Allied Holdings Lumbermens Underwriting Allliance Lunda Construction Co. Lundbeck Canada Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc ProBuild ProTradeNet Process Equipment Company Procter & Gamble Prodrive Engelhard LLC.
Business Background Report Lumbermens Truss Division. Welcome to our Ford X Plan Partner list. Knox Ford makes it easy shopping for plan qualifications.
Want to Search By State we also list those for you. If you are not sure what A, X and Z Plan is then we can answers those questions as well.
Go Back to Employee Pricing FAQ. Organized in , Lumbermens Underwriting Alliance (LUA) is a Missouri domiciled reciprocal insurance exchange specializing in providing commercial property and workers compensation insurance to the forest products industry, assisted living facilities and other preferred risks.
Find out what works well at Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance from the people who know best. Get the inside scoop on jobs, salaries, top office locations, and CEO insights.
Compare pay for popular roles and read about the team’s work-life balance. Uncover why Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance is the best company for you. Lumbermens Underwriting Alliance Nipponkoa Insurance Company, Limited Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance USA Inc. Atlanta International Insurance Company Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company QBE Reinsurance Corporation Constitution Insurance Company.