Limitation Defeats Suit Against Insurer

By Barry Zalma on March 4, 2026

Supreme Court of Alabama Grants a Rare Request for Mandate

Statute of Limitations Demands Summary Judgment for Insurer

Post number 5296

See the video at https://rumble.com/v76kbb6-limitation-defeats-suit-against-insurer.html and at https://youtu.be/L-xQ4Bb-MIA

In Ex parte Alfa Mutual Insurance Company and Jeffery Dimoff, In re Kinsman Investments, LLC v. Alfa Mutual Insurance Company and Jeffery Dimoff, No. SC-2025-0478, Supreme Court of Alabama (February 27, 2026) a rare Petition for Writ of Mandamus was granted and the trial court was ordered to enter summary judgment on behalf of Alfa.

Facts

Kinsman Investments, LLC (“Kinsman”) owned an apartment complex in Mobile, Alabama, which suffered significant damage from Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. At the time, the property was insured by Alfa Mutual Insurance Company (“Alfa”). Jeffery Dimoff, an insurance adjuster for Alfa, worked with Kinsman’s owner to facilitate payment for roof and siding replacement.

In 2022, Kinsman filed suit against Alfa and Dimoff, alleging that Alfa failed to pay all sums due under the policy and that both Alfa and Dimoff misrepresented and suppressed Alfa’s obligations under the policy. Kinsman contended that Alfa and Dimoff persuaded it to install 10-year roofs, claiming that the original 25-year “torch roofs” were unavailable and hazardous, though the policy allowed for replacement with like kind and quality or payment for the diminished value. Kinsman’s owner alleged reliance on Dimoff’s interpretation of the policy.

Law

The case centers on the interpretation of the insurance policy’s replacement provision, which permits Alfa either to replace damaged property with materials of like kind and quality or to pay the insured for the difference in value if lesser-quality materials are used. The legal issue involves whether Alfa and its adjuster fulfilled their contractual and statutory duties and whether any misrepresentation or suppression occurred in the handling of the claim.

Discussion and Analysis

Alfa and Dimoff petitioned for a writ of mandamus after the trial court denied their motions for summary judgment. They argued that the evidence demonstrated compliance with the insurance policy and that summary judgment should have been granted in their favor.

The Supreme Court of Alabama, upon review, found merit in the petitioners’ position, concluding that the trial court erred in denying summary judgment. The Court determined that the policy’s language gave Alfa discretion to either replace with like kind and quality or compensate for any reduction in value, and that Kinsman failed to present evidence of actionable misrepresentation or suppression. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the writ and directed the entry of summary judgment for Alfa and Dimoff.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the petitioner can demonstrate:

a clear legal right to the order sought;
an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so;
the lack of another adequate remedy; and
the properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.

It is well settled that a petition for a writ of mandamus ordinarily is not an appropriate means of seeking relief from the denial of a motion for a summary judgment. However, the Supreme Court narrowly extended the circumstances in which it will review a trial court’s denial of a summary-judgment motion on statute-of-limitations grounds to include those cases in which the defendants have demonstrated, from the face of the complaint, a clear legal right to relief and the absence of another adequate remedy.

The standard referenced for mandamus relief – a “clear legal right” to the relief – is the standard for actually “winning” relief in the appellate court.

A petition for a writ of mandamus is appropriate if there are certain defenses (e.g., immunity, subject-matter jurisdiction, in personam jurisdiction, venue, and some statute-of-limitations defenses) that are of such a nature that a party simply ought not to be put to the expense and effort of litigation.

Alfa and Dimoff demonstrated, based on the face of the complaint, a clear legal right to a summary judgment in their favor.

Because Alfa and Dimoff have demonstrated, from the face of the complaint, that they are entitled to a summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds and because they have demonstrated the lack of another adequate remedy, a writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy in this case.

ZALMA OPINION

Insurance litigation where a motion for summary judgment is denied usually requires a trial to resolve. Petitions for Mandate are seldom granted and are usually denied with a one line order that fits on a post card. In this case, the trial court refused a summary judgment where the suit was barred by a statute of limitations. The Supreme Court granted mandate because it refused to compel Alfa to go through trial when the case was clearly barred by the statute of limitations.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.