Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Head

I think the majority opinion in this case exacerbates the error made by the plurality opinion in Powell v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 581 So.2d 772 (Ala. 1990).

Liability coverage provided for "property damage" is different from liability coverage for personal injury, and it has a limit of liability different from the limit of liability for personal injury.

Rule 17, A.R.Civ.P., in pertinent part, provides:

"Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. . . .

"In subrogation cases, regardless of whether subrogation has occurred by operation of law, assignment, loan receipt, or otherwise, if the subrogor no longer has a pecuniary interest in the claim, the action shall be brought in the name of the subrogee. If the subrogor still has a pecuniary interest in the claim, the action shall be brought in the names of the subrogor and the subrogee."

The majority opinion denies Alfa its right to intervene; that is error.