Ex Parte Stenum Hospital, 1100245 (Ala. 9-16-2011), 81 So. 3d 314

In Feb. 2007 Elizabeth Duncan slipped on a wet tile floor at Madison Square Mall; she and her husband sued the mall parties.
The mall parties filed a third-party complaint against Stenum Hospital and related hospital parties, alleging various medical and related misconduct.
The third-party complaint sought reimbursement for damages, liability for mall damages, and recovery of defense costs.
The hospital parties moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)-(6); the trial court denied without comment.
The Alabama Supreme Court granted mandamus, directing dismissal of the mall parties’ third-party complaint for lack of standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do the mall parties have standing to assert the third-party claims?	Mall parties assert claims could arise from Elizabeth's surgery; they pursue indemnity/contribution.	Mall parties lack injury-to-protected-right; cannot sue for indemnity or reimbursement.	Mall parties lack standing; trial court must dismiss the third-party complaint.

Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288 (Ala.2007) (standing and mandamus review standards applied)
Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So.2d 497 (Ala.1995) (mandamus criteria for jurisdiction and standing)
Ex parte Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 888 So.2d 478 (Ala.2003) (standing and jurisdiction; limited remedies for mandamus)
Town of Cedar Bluff v. Citizens Caring for Children, 904 So.2d 1253 (Ala.2004) (standing requires real injury to a legally protected right)
J.C. Bradford & Co. v. Calhoun, 612 So.2d 396 (Ala.1992) (joint tortfeasor indemnity limitations; no general right to indemnity among tortfeasors)
Gobble v. Bradford, 226 Ala. 517, 147 So. 619 (Ala.1933) (no contribution among joint tortfeasors; Rule 14 cannot create rights not recognized by substantive law)
Home Ins. Co. v. Stuart-McCorkle, Inc., 291 Ala. 601, 285 So.2d 468 (Ala.1973) (indemnification when defendant stands in shoes of claimant)