Ex parte Alfa Mutual Insurance Co., 212 So. 3d 915

The Langs purchased a farm-owner policy from Alfa covering three structures; over time they demolished the original barn and built two new barns (1,600 sq ft and 3,500 sq ft).
The policy declarations did not list the two later-built barns; declarations in later years showed coverage only for the tenant dwelling (and later only that dwelling with $30,000 coverage).
In March 2013 both barns were storm-damaged; Alfa denied coverage, stating no record of coverage for the barns.
The Langs sued Alfa in April 2013 for bad faith and breach of contract. Alfa moved to dismiss based on the declarations; the trial court denied the motion.
Nearly two years after filing, and after Alfa repeatedly inquired whether the Langs would amend, the Langs filed an amended complaint adding negligence and fraud claims tied to alleged oral promises by their (now-deceased) agent Shigley.
Alfa moved to strike the amended complaint as untimely, prejudicial (key witness Shigley had died before deposition), and futile; the trial court denied the motion. Alfa petitioned for mandamus.

Issue	Langs' Argument	Alfa's Argument	Held
Whether leave to amend (filed within 42 days of trial) should be allowed	Amendment merely adds alternative theories based on same facts; not prejudicial and permissible	Amendment was untimely, prejudicial, and added claims based on facts known at filing; key witness died	Trial court abused discretion; amendment stricken
Whether Langs showed "good cause" for late amendment	Delay was justified by ongoing discovery and representation that Shigley would be deposed	Langs knew or should have known the basis for new claims when original complaint was filed and delayed without adequate explanation	No good cause; delay unjustified
Whether amendment prejudiced Alfa	No substantial prejudice; Alfa already knew facts	Prejudice: death of key witness (Shigley) prevented Alfa from fully defending	Prejudice shown; unfair disadvantage to Alfa
Whether claims in amended complaint were futile given policy/declarations	New claims assert misrepresentation/negligence about coverage changes, not mere contract theory	Claims rest on facts inconsistent with written declarations and would be futile	Futility/merit unnecessary to decide because undue delay and prejudice warranted striking amendment

Ex parte United Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501 (Ala. 1993) (mandamus standard)
Ex parte GRE Ins. Group, 822 So.2d 388 (Ala. 2001) (amendments freely allowed unless actual prejudice or undue delay)
Ex parte Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 858 So.2d 950 (Ala. 2003) (mandamus to correct abuse of discretion on pleadings amendment)
Blackmon v. Nexity Financial Corp., 953 So.2d 1180 (Ala. 2006) (undue delay and notice of facts at initial filing justify denial of amendment)
Ex parte DePaola, 46 So.3d 884 (Ala. 2010) (application of prejudice and undue delay in amendment context)
Bracy v. Sippial Elec. Co., 379 So.2d 582 (Ala. 1980) (theory-change amendments based on same facts are not prejudicial)