Precedents Cited

1) Alabama notice clauses: “as soon as reasonably possible/practicable”

The panel treated the policy phrase “as soon as reasonably possible” as functionally equivalent to common Alabama formulations “as soon as possible” and “as soon as practicable.” Relying on Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fogg, the court reiterated that such language means notice within a “reasonable time under the circumstances,” and that “exact phraseology” makes little difference.

The court further grounded the timeliness test in Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Miller: only two factors matter— length of delay and reasons for delay—and prejudice is not a factor. It reinforced the same rule with U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Baldwin Cnty. Home Builders Ass'n (only length and reasons are considered).

2) Third-party (injured party) notice and direct-action posture

The court acknowledged Alabama’s recognition that an injured party may supply notice in some circumstances, citing Alfa Ins. Co. v. Templeton and its reliance on Safeway Ins. Co. of Ala. v. Thompson. It also noted that the Alabama Supreme Court has suggested that “written notice by an injured party instead of its insured could satisfy the notice requirements” (quoting Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Miller).

But the opinion treated the decisive limiting principle as coming from Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Estate of Files and Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Miller: even if the insurer receives notice from the injured party, timeliness is assessed by asking whether the delay is justified from the insured’s perspective. In Files, a five-month delay required an excuse; because the insured provided none, coverage was barred, and the injured party could not “reach and apply” the proceeds. Miller followed the same approach and expressly rejected a contrary drift in Haston v. Transamerica Ins. Servs., labeling it an “aberration.”

3) The insured is presumed to know the policy

To distinguish A.B.’s prompt investigation from Barrow’s prolonged silence, the court invoked Crook v. Allstate Indem. Co., emphasizing that an insured is “presumed to be familiar with the provisions of his policy.” This presumption undermined any argument that Barrow’s failure to notify could be excused by ignorance.

4) Contract interpretation methodology (and why no rewriting occurred)

The court framed interpretation as a question of law under Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., enforced unambiguous terms per Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Tee Jays Mfg. Co., and defined ambiguity using Lafayette Land Acquisitions II, LLC v. Walls. For interpretive perspective and ordinary meaning, it cited Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ala. Gas Corp..

5) Linguistic/structural reasoning

Two non-Alabama authorities supported interpretive mechanics. First, dictionary usage (Black’s, Webster’s, American Heritage) supported reading “on behalf of” in its modern, broader sense. Second, Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro supported the syntactic point that “or” is “almost always disjunctive,” which the panel used to reject A.B.’s attempt to create two separate timing clocks within a single “You or someone on your behalf must … as soon as reasonably possible” condition.

6) Procedural posture and context

The standard of review came from Anthony v. Georgia (de novo review of summary judgment). The opinion also referenced the earlier related decision Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barrow for factual context about the underlying exploitation and litigation.

Legal Reasoning

1) “On [Barrow’s] behalf” includes actions taken for the insured’s benefit

The policy allowed notice by “You or someone on your behalf.” Nationwide urged a narrow, agency-only reading (i.e., notice only by Barrow or an authorized representative). The court rejected that limitation as inconsistent with “common, everyday meaning” under Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ala. Gas Corp., relying on modern usage sources showing that “on behalf of” commonly means “in the interest of” or “for the benefit of,” not solely “as agent.” Under that reading, A.B.’s counsel’s subpoena to Nationwide constituted notice “on [Barrow’s] behalf” because it sought to trigger coverage—an outcome in Barrow’s interest (and one Nationwide conceded aligned with Barrow’s interest in the coverage dispute).

2) Authorization does not answer timeliness; timeliness attaches to the single occurrence-based duty

Even accepting that A.B. could give notice, the court held the policy imposes one timing requirement: written notice of an occurrence must be given “as soon as reasonably possible.” The panel reasoned that if it was “reasonably possible” for Barrow to provide notice earlier, then it was “reasonably possible” for “You or someone on your behalf” to do so earlier as well; allowing a later clock for the third party would effectively create two deadlines not found in the contract.

3) Alabama’s strict notice doctrine: length + reasons; no prejudice

Applying Miller and Baldwin Cnty. Home Builders Ass'n, the court treated the 58-month delay as dispositive absent evidence of a reasonable justification. The panel emphasized the Alabama rule that courts decide breach “as a matter of law” when the insured offers no reasonable excuse for a protracted delay. It highlighted Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Estate of Files, where even a five-month delay required an excuse; here, there was none from Barrow.

4) Why A.B.’s diligence did not cure Barrow’s breach

A.B. argued that, under Am. Liberty Ins. Co. v. Soules, a claimant’s notice clock may begin when the claimant learns of the policy and obtains it—and that she moved promptly once she learned Nationwide might be the insurer. The court accepted that A.B. acted with “reasonable promptness” as a claimant. But it held that in a direct-action posture the injured party stands in the insured’s shoes: “the terms of the policy imposing obligations on the insured are effective as against the injured party” (as reflected in Files and Miller). Thus, A.B. could not obtain “greater rights under the policy than Barrow himself possessed,” and could not supply “timely notice … independent of the contractual duties of the insured” (Miller).

5) Rule 56 challenge rejected

The panel found no Rule 56 error: the district court’s decision turned on notice and Alabama law, and the criminal-conduct background served only contextual and chronological purposes—mirroring the factual narration previously used in Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barrow.

Impact

• Clarifies “on behalf of” in notice provisions: In Alabama-governed policies, “on behalf of” may be read broadly to include actions taken for the insured’s benefit, not solely those taken by a formal agent. This may expand who can validly transmit notice.
• Reinforces a strict timeliness gate even when the insurer actually defends: The opinion reaffirms Alabama’s notice doctrine that timeliness depends on delay length and reasons, not prejudice, and that an insured’s unexplained delay can forfeit coverage as a matter of law—even where the insurer later participates in the defense (here, Nationwide retained counsel in July 2019 and defended through verdict).
• Direct-action claimants inherit the insured’s notice problems: For plaintiffs proceeding under ALA. CODE § 27-23-2, this case underscores that claimant diligence in discovering insurance cannot necessarily “revive” coverage if the insured’s occurrence-based notice duty was already breached without excuse.
• Practical litigation consequence: Claimants and their counsel may increase pressure early in underlying litigation to identify carriers and prompt insureds (or their counsel) to tender immediately; otherwise, coverage may evaporate before collection efforts begin.