Preview:

REL:12/21/07

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2007-2008 _________________________ 1050460 _________________________ John Raley v. James Allen Main, as finance director of the State of Alabama, et al. _________________________ 1050547 _________________________ James Allen Main, as finance director of the State of Alabama, et al. v. John Raley

________________________ 1050553 _______________________ Joyce Sharpley, as the administratrix of the estate of James Sharpley, deceased v. James Allen Main, as finance director of the State of Alabama, et al. Appeals from Montgomery Circuit Court (CV-05-346) BOLIN, Justice. On February 7, 2005, John Raley sued James Allen Main, in his capacity as finance director of the State of Alabama; Troy King, in his capacity as the attorney general of the State of Alabama; the State of Alabama General Liability Trust Fund ("the Fund"); and the State of Alabama (these defendants are collectively hereinafter referred to as "the State

defendants"). He also named as a defendant Joyce Sharpley, in her capacity as the administratrix of the estate of her

deceased husband, James Sharpley. Raley sought a judgment declaring whether the State defendants were obligated to

provide him a defense and indemnification in an action brought by Sharpley against him in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division. 2

1050460; 1050547; and 1050553 The State defendants answered the complaint asserting certain affirmative defenses and generally denying that they were obligated to defend or indemnify Raley in the federal

litigation. On May 18, 2005, Raley moved the trial court for a

summary judgment contending that he was entitled to a defense from the Fund as to the claims asserted by Sharpley in the federal litigation and to indemnification from the Fund should any damages be awarded Sharpley. On August 15, 2005, Sharpley responded in support of Raley's motion, contending that Raley

was entitled to a defense and to indemnification from the Fund. On August 18, 2005, the State defendants responded to Raley's motion for a summary judgment and filed their own motion for a summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, that the controversy at issue is reserved to the legislative and executive branches of government, and that the State

defendants were immune from suit pursuant to Art. I,

Download 1050460.pdf

Alabama Law