fund doctrine in Alabama

14 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2024 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ala. v. Freemangreen alacivapp · 1983 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1995–2002 2 sentences 2002This court further stated: “The common fund doctrine is ‘an equitable concept that one person who assumes the risks and expense of litigation and has thereby secured, augmented or preserved property or a fund of money in which others are entitled to share, is due a contribution toward such expense from those sharing according to their interest.’ Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama v. Freeman, 447 So.2d 757, 758 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). 1995The common fund doctrine is “an equitable concept that one person who assumes the risks and expense of litigation and has thereby secured, augmented or preserved property or a fund of money in which others are entitled to share, is due a contribution toward such expense from those sharing according to their interest.” Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama v. Freeman, 447 So.2d 757, 758 (Ala.Civ.App.1983).	3	3
Harrell v. Pet, Inc.green alacivapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024Trott specifically stated that the two terms encompass different concepts, however, and we are bound by that precedent, see Ala. Code 1975, § 12-3-16. 13 CL-2023-0901 provided for in this code." (Emphasis added.) Although the trial court viewed the Fund's claim to portions of the proceeds obtained by the estate in the third-party action as necessarily having accrued at the time of Tumlin's death, the statutory right sought to be vindicated by the Fund is expressly predicated upon the existence and extent of the estate's "damages recovered and collected." Indeed, our legislature has mandated th	1	1
Underwriters at Lloyd's v. So. Natural Gasgreen ala · 2006 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011Although the trial court’s judgment refers to its judgment as being in favor of State Farm only as to "the issue of the common fund doctrine” (emphasis added), and although Rule 54(b) certifications may not properly be made as to only part of a claim, see generally Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Southern Natural Gas Co., 939 So.2d 21, 27-29 (Ala.2006), the practical effect of the trial court’s ruling on the parties’ summary-judgment motions, coupled with its decision not to rule on the contract claims asserted against State Farm by the insured, was to preclude the insured from reco	1	1
Alston v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen alacivapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 1 sentence 2002Put another way, an attorney, whose efforts result in recovery of funds in which various persons have an interest, is entitled to payment from such funds of a reasonable fee for his representation of the common interest....’ “Id., at 759 (emphasis added). ‘The “common fund” doctrine does not require a person (insurer) to pay for the costs incurred by another person (insured) in creating a “common fund,” if that person (insurer) has expended his own substantial costs to create the “common fund.” “... ‘[A] mere appearance as an interve-nor by an insurer for the purpose of securing a conditional	1	1
Mathews v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.green almd · 1988 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 1 sentence 1995State Farm filed its discovery requests after Alston had signed the subrogation agreement; there is no evidence to indicate that State Farm participated in the trial. “[I]t is the right to be subrogated to or reimbursed from the common recovery, rather than the right to be subrogated to the claim, which places an obligation on the insurer to pay a pro rata share of the costs expended in generating the benefits the insurer receives from the ‘common fund.’” Mathews , at 987.	1	1
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ala.green ala · 1989 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994Co. v. Tiffin, 537 So.2d 469 (Ala.1988), for a discussion of the application of the common fund doctrine." Commercial Union, 540 So.2d at 1369 (emphasis added). 1361 I can discern no relevant difference between Commercial Union and this case. 1994Co. v. Tiffin , 537 So.2d 469 (Ala. 1988), for a discussion of the application of the common fund doctrine." Commercial Union , 540 So.2d at 1369 (emphasis added). Page 1361 I can discern no relevant difference between Commercial Union and this case.	1	1
Boeing Co. v. Van Gemertgreen scotus · 1980 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992See Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert , 444 U.S. 472 , 100 S.Ct. 745 , 62 L.Ed.2d 676 (1980); in that case the United States Supreme Court, affirming the Court of Appeals' holding that absentee class members had received a benefit within the meaning of the common fund doctrine, Page 365 addressed the question "whether a proportionate share of the fees awarded to lawyers who represented the successful class may be assessed against the unclaimed portion of the fund created by a judgment," 444 U.S. at 473 , 100 S.Ct. at 747 , and held that the attorney who had recovered the common fund was entitled to a 1992See Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert , 444 U.S. 472 , 100 S.Ct. 745 , 62 L.Ed.2d 676 (1980); in that case the United States Supreme Court, affirming the Court of Appeals' holding that absentee class members had received a benefit within the meaning of the common fund doctrine, Page 365 addressed the question "whether a proportionate share of the fees awarded to lawyers who represented the successful class may be assessed against the unclaimed portion of the fund created by a judgment," 444 U.S. at 473 , 100 S.Ct. at 747 , and held that the attorney who had recovered the common fund was entitled to a	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Tiffin green ala · 1988 2 sentences 1994Co. v. Tiffin, 537 So.2d 469 (Ala.1988), for a discussion of the application of the common fund doctrine." Commercial Union, 540 So.2d at 1369 (emphasis added). 1361 I can discern no relevant difference between Commercial Union and this case. 1994Co. v. Tiffin , 537 So.2d 469 (Ala. 1988), for a discussion of the application of the common fund doctrine." Commercial Union , 540 So.2d at 1369 (emphasis added). Page 1361 I can discern no relevant difference between Commercial Union and this case.	3	1989–1994
INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITERS v. Liao green ala · 1989 2 sentences 2003This equitable type of attorney fee has been allowed in cases involving what this Court has categorized as a `common fund.' In Kimbrough v. Dickinson, 251 Ala. 677, 684 , 39 So.2d 241 (1949), this Court discussed the theory behind `the common fund doctrine' as follows: "`The rule[] rests upon the ground that where one litigant has borne the burden of expense of the litigation that has inured to the benefit of others as well as himself, those who have shared in the benefits should contribute to the expense.'" 548 So.2d at 166 . 2003This equitable type of attorney fee has been allowed in cases involving what this Court has categorized as a `common fund.' In Kimbrough v. Dickinson , 251 Ala. 677 , 684 , 39 So.2d 241 (1949), this Court discussed the theory behind `the common fund doctrine' as follows: "`The rule rests upon the ground that where one litigant has borne the burden of expense of the litigation that has inured to the benefit of others as well as himself, those who have shared in the benefits should contribute to the expense.'" 548 So.2d at 166 .	2	1997–2003
Kimbrough v. Dickinson green ala · 1949 2 sentences 2003This equitable type of attorney fee has been allowed in cases involving what this Court has categorized as a `common fund.' In Kimbrough v. Dickinson , 251 Ala. 677 , 684 , 39 So.2d 241 (1949), this Court discussed the theory behind `the common fund doctrine' as follows: "`The rule rests upon the ground that where one litigant has borne the burden of expense of the litigation that has inured to the benefit of others as well as himself, those who have shared in the benefits should contribute to the expense.'" 548 So.2d at 166 . 2003This equitable type of attorney fee has been allowed in cases involving what this Court has categorized as a `common fund.' In Kimbrough v. Dickinson , 251 Ala. 677 , 684 , 39 So.2d 241 (1949), this Court discussed the theory behind `the common fund doctrine' as follows: "`The rule rests upon the ground that where one litigant has borne the burden of expense of the litigation that has inured to the benefit of others as well as himself, those who have shared in the benefits should contribute to the expense.'" 548 So.2d at 166 .	2	1989–2003
Eagerton v. Williams green · 1983 2 sentences 1989This equitable type of attorney fee has been allowed in cases involving what this Court has categorized as a "common fund." In Kimbrough v. Dickinson , 251 Ala. 677 , 684 , 39 So.2d 241 (1949), this Court discussed the theory behind "the common fund doctrine" as follows: "The rules rests upon the ground that where one litigant has borne the burden of expense of the litigation that has inured to the benefit of others as well as himself, those who have shared in the benefits should contribute to the expense." See also, Maryland Casualty Company v. Tiffin , 537 So.2d 469 (Ala. 1988); Eagerton v. 1988Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board , 256 Ala. 430 , 54 So.2d 777 (1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 919 , 72 S.Ct. 677 , 96 L.Ed. 1333 (1952)." Though attorney fees were denied in Henley Clarke and Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board , they were permitted in Smith v. Alabama Medicaid Agency , 461 So.2d 817 , 820 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984), where the Medicaid Agency was subrogated to the entire amount paid but had to pay the proportionate amount of the attorney fee on the amount to which it was subrogated; and in Eagerton v. Williams , 433 So.2d 436 , 451 (Ala. 1983), in which Justice Almon wrote for the C	2	1988–1989
Trott v. Brinks, Inc. green ala · 2007 2 sentences 2024Ala. Code 1975, § 6-2-30(a), provides that "[a]ll civil actions must be commenced after the cause of action has accrued within the period prescribed in [Article 2 of Chapter 2 of Title 6] and not afterwards, unless otherwise specifically 4In certain cases preceding Trott v. Brinks, 972 So. 2d 81 (Ala. 2007), our courts, in addressing rights of recovery set forth in § 25-5-11 inuring to the benefit of an employer or a workers' compensation insurance carrier, have used the terms "reimbursement" and "subrogation" interchangeably. 2024Thus, under the holding of Trott, supra, the Fund's claim under § 25-5-11(a) is more properly categorized as one seeking reimbursement, as the Fund urges, as opposed to asserting a subrogation claim, as the estate contends and the trial court ruled. 4 Yet the question remains: did the trial court err in concluding that the Fund's reimbursement claim was untimely asserted?	1	2024–2024
City and County of San Francisco v. Sweet green cal · 1995 2 sentences 2002Dec. 898, 901 (1977) (refusing to "extend the common fund doctrine to require a mortgagee or a furniture store or any other creditor of a plaintiff to contribute to the fees of the plaintiff's attorney if the funds recovered by litigation are used to satisfy the plaintiff's obligations"); City County of San Francisco v. Sweet , 12 Cal.4th 105 , 116 , 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 42 , 48 , 906 P.2d 1196 , 1203 (1995). 2002Dec. 898, 901 (1977) (refusing to "extend the common fund doctrine to require a mortgagee or a furniture store or any other creditor of a plaintiff to contribute to the fees of the plaintiff's attorney if the funds recovered by litigation are used to satisfy the plaintiff's obligations"); City County of San Francisco v. Sweet , 12 Cal.4th 105 , 116 , 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 42 , 48 , 906 P.2d 1196 , 1203 (1995).	1	2002–2002
Trustees v. Greenough green scotus · 1882 2 sentences 2002We stated: "`The United States Supreme Court created the common fund doctrine in Trustees v. Greenough (1881), 105 U.S. 527 , 15 Otto. 527, 26 L.Ed. 1157 , and has subsequently applied that doctrine in numerous other cases (citations omitted). 2002We stated: "`The United States Supreme Court created the common fund doctrine in Trustees v. Greenough (1881), 105 U.S. 527 , 15 Otto. 527, 26 L.Ed. 1157 , and has subsequently applied that doctrine in numerous other cases (citations omitted).	1	2002–2002
Murer v. State Compensation Mutual Insurance Fund green mont · 1997 2 sentences 2002These common fund doctrine cases provide that when a party has an interest in a fund in common with others and incurs legal fees in order to establish, preserve, increase, or collect that fund, then that party is entitled to reimbursement of his or her reasonable attorney fees from the proceeds of the fund itself.' " Murer , 283 Mont. at 222 , 942 P.2d at 76 . 2002These common fund doctrine cases provide that when a party has an interest in a fund in common with others and incurs legal fees in order to establish, preserve, increase, or collect that fund, then that party is entitled to reimbursement of his or her reasonable attorney fees from the proceeds of the fund itself.' " Murer , 283 Mont. at 222 , 942 P.2d at 76 .	1	2002–2002
CNA Ins. Companies v. Johnson Galleries green ala · 1994 1 sentence 1997In CNA Insurance Companies v. Johnson Galleries of Opelika, Inc. , 639 So.2d 1355 (Ala. 1994), our supreme court stated: "The 'common fund' doctrine is an exception to the general rule that attorney fees are not recoverable.	1	1997–1997
Smith v. Alabama Medicaid Agency green alacivapp · 1984 1 sentence 1988Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board , 256 Ala. 430 , 54 So.2d 777 (1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 919 , 72 S.Ct. 677 , 96 L.Ed. 1333 (1952)." Though attorney fees were denied in Henley Clarke and Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board , they were permitted in Smith v. Alabama Medicaid Agency , 461 So.2d 817 , 820 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984), where the Medicaid Agency was subrogated to the entire amount paid but had to pay the proportionate amount of the attorney fee on the amount to which it was subrogated; and in Eagerton v. Williams , 433 So.2d 436 , 451 (Ala. 1983), in which Justice Almon wrote for the C	1	1988–1988
Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board green ala · 1951 2 sentences 1988Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board , 256 Ala. 430 , 54 So.2d 777 (1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 919 , 72 S.Ct. 677 , 96 L.Ed. 1333 (1952)." Though attorney fees were denied in Henley Clarke and Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board , they were permitted in Smith v. Alabama Medicaid Agency , 461 So.2d 817 , 820 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984), where the Medicaid Agency was subrogated to the entire amount paid but had to pay the proportionate amount of the attorney fee on the amount to which it was subrogated; and in Eagerton v. Williams , 433 So.2d 436 , 451 (Ala. 1983), in which Justice Almon wrote for the C 1988Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board , 256 Ala. 430 , 54 So.2d 777 (1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 919 , 72 S.Ct. 677 , 96 L.Ed. 1333 (1952)." Though attorney fees were denied in Henley Clarke and Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board , they were permitted in Smith v. Alabama Medicaid Agency , 461 So.2d 817 , 820 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984), where the Medicaid Agency was subrogated to the entire amount paid but had to pay the proportionate amount of the attorney fee on the amount to which it was subrogated; and in Eagerton v. Williams , 433 So.2d 436 , 451 (Ala. 1983), in which Justice Almon wrote for the C	1	1988–1988
Olin Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board green scotus · 1952 1 sentence 1988Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board , 256 Ala. 430 , 54 So.2d 777 (1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 919 , 72 S.Ct. 677 , 96 L.Ed. 1333 (1952)." Though attorney fees were denied in Henley Clarke and Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board , they were permitted in Smith v. Alabama Medicaid Agency , 461 So.2d 817 , 820 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984), where the Medicaid Agency was subrogated to the entire amount paid but had to pay the proportionate amount of the attorney fee on the amount to which it was subrogated; and in Eagerton v. Williams , 433 So.2d 436 , 451 (Ala. 1983), in which Justice Almon wrote for the C	1	1988–1988
Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board green scotus · 1952 2 sentences 1988Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board , 256 Ala. 430 , 54 So.2d 777 (1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 919 , 72 S.Ct. 677 , 96 L.Ed. 1333 (1952)." Though attorney fees were denied in Henley Clarke and Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board , they were permitted in Smith v. Alabama Medicaid Agency , 461 So.2d 817 , 820 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984), where the Medicaid Agency was subrogated to the entire amount paid but had to pay the proportionate amount of the attorney fee on the amount to which it was subrogated; and in Eagerton v. Williams , 433 So.2d 436 , 451 (Ala. 1983), in which Justice Almon wrote for the C 1988Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board , 256 Ala. 430 , 54 So.2d 777 (1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 919 , 72 S.Ct. 677 , 96 L.Ed. 1333 (1952)." Though attorney fees were denied in Henley Clarke and Lewis v. Railroad Retirement Board , they were permitted in Smith v. Alabama Medicaid Agency , 461 So.2d 817 , 820 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984), where the Medicaid Agency was subrogated to the entire amount paid but had to pay the proportionate amount of the attorney fee on the amount to which it was subrogated; and in Eagerton v. Williams , 433 So.2d 436 , 451 (Ala. 1983), in which Justice Almon wrote for the C	1	1988–1988
Central States, Southeast And Southwest Areas Health And Welfare Fund v. Old Security Life Insurance Company green ca7 · 1979 1 sentence 1983The following excerpt from Central States, supra , summarizing the basis for the relief sought against Defendants, suffices to demonstrate the invocation of the pre-emption clause of 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (e)(1): "It is alleged that the Fund contracted with Old Security for insurance benefits to Fund members; that at that time Old Security failed to inform the Fund of Old Security's feeble financial condition; that the Fund transferred $7 million in premiums to Old Security; that Old Security defaulted on the contract because of its financial condition; that the failure to inform and default were p	1	1983–1983
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Clinton green or · 1974 1 sentence 1983State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. v. Clinton, supra. Blue Cross in brief recognizes the existence of the common fund doctrine.	1	1983–1983

Where else courts name it

IL 111 (1923–2025) CA 75 (1976–2025) WA 57 (1896–2026) TX 47 (1979–2025) AZ 26 (1971–2020) NY 25 (1888–2025) FL 22 (1971–2020) MT 19 (1933–2008) MO 18 (1878–2025) OH 18 (1934–2015) PA 17 (1877–2025) NE 16 (1981–2021) OK 15 (1955–2010) AL 14 (1983–2024) TN 14 (1987–2018) AK 13 (1995–2021) NM 13 (1989–2024) DE 13 (1996–2026) WI 13 (1985–2020) KS 11 (1995–2024) NC 10 (1987–2015) ND 10 (1916–2020) MI 10 (1902–2018) CO 9 (1923–2007) IN 9 (1897–2023) OR 8 (1981–2011) MD 8 (1974–2016) VT 8 (1904–2025) LA 7 (1958–2002) SC 6 (2008–2025) NJ 5 (1956–2019) DC 5 (1977–2013) ID 5 (2001–2019) MS 4 (1896–2002) ME 3 (1997–2014) IA 3 (1995–2010) HI 3 (1982–2001) UT 3 (2008–2018) KY 3 (1909–2008) MA 3 (1982–2024) SD 2 (1983–1987) WV 2 (1969–2023) MN 2 (1977–1994) CT 2 (2001–2010) NV 2 (1990–1993) AR 2 (1991–2007) GA 2 (1997–2001)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check