Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. DPF Architects, P.C., et al.; K-2, Inc. v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court held that contractors lacked standing to challenge an insurer's subrogation claim on the ground that the insureds had not been made whole because of policy deductibles. Under Alabama law, only the insured may object to an insurer's lack of payment or lack of full recovery. The court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the contractors and dismissed K-2's cross-appeal from the denial of its summary-judgment motion as arising from a nonappealable order.

Holdings

1. The Contractors lacked standing to object to Nationwide's subrogation rights on the ground that Nationwide had not made its insureds whole. The made-whole rule benefits the insured, and only the insured may object to the insurer's allegedly premature subrogation claim absent an affirmative showing of objection or direct intervention.
2. The denial of K-2's separate summary-judgment motion was not an appealable order; therefore, K-2's cross-appeal was dismissed without reaching the merits.
3. The summary judgment entered for the Developer stood because Nationwide did not contest it in its arguments to the Supreme Court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether construction defendants had standing to assert that Nationwide's insureds had not been made whole because the insureds paid policy deductibles.
2. Whether K-2's cross-appeal from the denial of its summary-judgment motion was appealable.
3. Whether the trial court properly entered summary judgment for the Developer as an additional insured under the Association's policy.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded