Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 27-23-1 (2026)
When Insurer’s Liability Absolute.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
As to every contract of insurance made between an insurer and any insured by which such insured is insured against loss or damage on account of the bodily injury or death by accident of any person for which loss or damage such insured is responsible, whenever a loss occurs on account of a casualty covered by such contract of insurance, the liability of the insurer shall become absolute and the payment of the loss shall not depend upon the satisfaction by the insured of a final judgment against him for loss, or damage, or death occasioned by the casualty. No such contract of insurance shall be cancelled or annulled by any agreement between the insurer and the insured after the insured has become responsible for such loss or damage, and any such cancellation or annulment shall be void.
(Code 1940, T. 28, §11; Acts 1971, No. 407, p. 707, §484.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Morewitz v. West of England Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n (Luxembourg), 62 F.3d 1356 (11th Cir. 1995).
Morewitz v. West of England Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n (Luxembourg), 62 F.3d 1356 (11th Cir. 1995). “Ala.Code §§ 27-23-1 and 27-23-2 (1975). As we stated in Morewitz I, direct action statutes “give a group of persons — those whose possible injury was the risk insured by the contract— direct standing to sue an insurer by putting them ‘in the shoes’ of the assured.”
Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut v. Miller, 1100619 (Ala. 12-2-2011), 86 So. 3d 338 (Ala. 2011). “After obtaining the default judgment, the Ha-stons filed a direct action in October 1992 against an agent of Transamerica and later added Transamerica as Smith Brothers’ insurance provider under § 27-23-1. Transamerica moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.”
Wiggins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 686 So. 2d 218 (Ala. 1996). “, and §§ 27-23-1 and 27-23-2, Ala.Code 1975. The trial court held that Rule 69, Ala.”
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. v. Est. of Files, 10 So. 3d 533 (Ala. 2008). “1995), this Court stated: “A claim under §§ 27-23-1 and —2[, Ala.Code 1975,] to apply the proceeds of a contract of insurance to satisfy a judgment has been described by this Court as follows: “ ‘Under Alabama law, the injured party acquires a vested interest (secondary) in the…”
Mitchum v. Hudgens, 533 So. 2d 194 (Ala. 1988). “See Alabama Code 1975, § 27-23-1. Finally, Dr.”
Armentrout v. Atl. Cas. Ins. Co., 731 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (S.D. Ala. 2010). “Ala. Code 1975 § 27-23-1 (emphasis added).”
James & Hackworth v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 522 F. Supp. 785 (N.D. Ala. 1980). “” The Alabama Code 1975, §§ 27-23-1 & 2, provides, under the conditions therein set out, for a recovery by a judgment creditor against the insurer in a case such as the one now before the Court.”
Graben v. a & B Transp., Inc., 8 So. 3d 924 (Ala. 2007). “Section 27-23-1 states: "As to every contract of insurance made between an insurer and any insured by which such insured is insured against loss or damage on account of the bodily injury or death by accident of any person for which loss or damage such insured is responsible,…”
Admiral Ins. Co. v. Price-Williams, 129 So. 3d 991 (Ala. 2013). “2011)), this Court stated: “A claim under §§ 27-23-1 and -2[, Ala.Code 1975,] to apply the proceeds of a contract of insurance to satisfy a judgment has been described by this Court as follows: .”
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Nowlin, 542 So. 2d 1190 (Ala. 1989). “Alabama Farm Bureau, supra, which held: "The cross-claims of the Manesses against the insurance carriers are a form of direct action against an insurance carrier and not allowable under Alabama law because an injured party cannot bring a direct action against the insurance…”
North River Ins. Co. v. Overton, 59 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2010). “Thus, defenses to liability available to the insurer in an action brought by the insured would also be available to the insurer in an action brought pursuant to §§ 27-23-1 and -2 by the injured party.” Haston v.”
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Curry, 157 So. 3d 906 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014). “Although the trial court did not specify why it dismissed the "counterclaim” Curry and Walker asserted against State Farm, it would appear that the counterclaim was dismissed because it was not permitted under the direct-action statutes, Ala.Code 1975, §§ 27-23-1 and 27-23-2,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.