Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appeals from judgments entered by the Madison Circuit Court (“the trial court”) in favor of Greenway Enterprises, Inc. We dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in part.
On January 9, 2006, Liberty Mutual sued Greenway, seeking to recover allegedly unpaid premiums due on a workers’ compensation and employers’ liability insurance policy Liberty Mutual had issued to Greenwаy. Greenway filed an answer on April 11, 2006, denying liability, asserting various affirmative defenses, and requesting that costs and fees be taxed against Liberty Mutual. 1 On March 22, 2007, Greenway moved for a summary judgment on Liberty Mutual’s claim for unpaid premiums, and the trial court set the motion for a hearing on May 18, 2007. On May 17, 2007, Liberty Mutual filed its opposition to the summary-judgment motion, along with a motion to allow it to file its oppоsition even though it was untimely, 2 and a motion to amend its responses to Greenway’s requests for admissions. During the hearing on the summary-judgment motion on May 18, 2007, Greenway moved to strike Liberty Mutual’s dilatory filings as untimely. Thе trial court denied Liberty Mutual’s motion to file its untimely opposition materials, granted Greenway’s motion to strike Liberty Mutual’s tardy opposition to its summary-judgment motion, and denied Liberty Mutual’s motion to аmend its responses to Greenway’s requests for admissions. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Greenway on May 22, 2007. The trial court subsequently vacated that summary judgment on its own motion and entered an amended summary judgment the same day, simply adding “costs are taxed as paid.”
On May 29, 2007, Greenway moved the trial court to order Liberty Mutual to pay its costs and attorney fees. Greеnway maintained in that motion that, pursuant to Rule 54(d), Ala. R. Civ. P., it should recover costs and that, pursuant to the insurance contract between the parties and because Liberty Mutual had filed a frivоlous complaint in violation of the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act (“the ALAA”), Ala.Code 1975, § 12-19-270 et seq., it should recover attorney fees. On June 7, 2007, Liberty Mutual filed a motion to alter, amend, vacate, or set aside the May 22, 2007, summary judgment. The trial court set those motions for a hearing to take place on July 12, 2007, but the trial court continued the hearing at Greenway’s request and reset the hеaring to August 16, 2007. On June 28, 2007, Greenway filed an opposition to Liberty Mutual’s motion to alter, amend, vacate, or set aside. On August 2, 2007, Liberty Mutual’s counsel informed the trial court of a scheduling conflict, which рrompted the trial court to reschedule the August 16, 2007, hearing to October 1, 2007. On August 10, 2007, Greenway filed a “motion requesting court to rule on pleadings in lieu of hearing.” Liberty Mutual filed an
On November 19, 2007, the trial court conducted a hearing on the variоus pending motions. The trial court entered an order on November 80, 2007, denying Liberty Mutual’s motion to alter, amend, vacate, or set aside the summary judgment and granting Greenway’s motion to tax costs аnd attorney fees. The trial court directed Greenway to submit a proposed judgment to include additional costs and attorney fees incurred by Greenway since the filing of its motion to tax costs and fees. On December 4, 2007, Greenway submitted an affidavit of its attorney along with a proposed order. The trial court entered an order on December 12, 2007, awarding Greenway $571.10 in cоsts and $4,081.39 in attorney fees. Liberty Mutual filed its notice of appeal on January 22, 2008.
On December 4, 2008, Liberty Mutual filed its appellate brief with this court, arguing that the trial court had erred in denying its motion to amend its responses to Greenway’s requests for admissions, in granting Greenway’s motion for a summary judgment, and in awarding Green-way attorney fees under the ATA A. Following the filing of Greenway’s appellee’s brief and Liberty Mutual’s reply brief, this court, on February 2, 2009, directed the parties to further brief the court regarding the timeliness of Liberty Mutual’s appeal and the validity of the December 12, 2007, judgment taxing costs аnd assessing attorney fees against Liberty Mutual. 4 Liberty Mutual filed its letter brief on February 18, 2009, and Greenway filed its letter brief on February 17, 2009.
We cannot address the issues raised by Liberty Mutual regarding the May 22, 2007, summary judgment. That judgmеnt conclusively determined all the issues before the court and put an end to the proceedings, leaving nothing for further adjudication except Greenway’s request in its answer for the imposition of costs and fees. Rule 58(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., states, in pertinent part, that “[t]he entry of the judgment or order shall not be delayed for the taxing of costs.” Hence, the failure to tax costs did not affect the finality of the summary judgment.
Holman v. Bane,
Pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Ala. R.App. P., Liberty Mutual had 42 days from the date of the entry of the summary judgment to
Liberty Mutual did, however, timely file a notice of appeal from the December 12, 2007, judgment. That judgment constitutes a final judgment regarding the cоllateral issues of costs and attorney fees that will itself support an appeal.
See James River Corp. v. Bolton,
Liberty Mutual argues that the trial court violated Ala.Code 1975, § 12-19-273, a part of the ALAA, and
Pacific Entеrprises Oil Co. (USA) v. Howell Petroleum Corp.,
We note that, at the time of the November 30, 2007, order, the trial court had no jurisdiction to award attorney fees under the ALAA because the trial court did not reserve jurisdiction to award fees under the ALAA in its summary judgment.
See Casey v. McConnell,
We must therefore assume that the trial court awarded fees to Greenway pursuant to the terms of the insurance contract. The fact that the trial court did not enter written findings of fact specifying its reasons for awarding the fees only bolsters our conclusion that the trial court did not rely on the ALAA in making the awаrd. Liberty Mutual has not raised any argument that the trial court erred in awarding
APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.
Notes
. Liberty Mutual moved to set aside that answer because it was filed by an attorney not licensed to practice law in Alabama. An attorney licensed to practice law in Alabama subsequently appeared for Greenway and moved to admit Greenway's original attorney for admission to practice law in Alabama pro hac vice. The triаl court granted the motion and denied Liberty Mutual's motion to set aside Greenway's answer.
. Rule 56(c)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., requires any statement or affidavit in opposition to a motion for a summary judgment to be "served at least two (2) days prior to the hearing."
. Although the trial court referred to a “trial,” it evidently meant a "hearing.”
. Although neither party raised these issues in their initial briefs to this court, " ‘[flurisdic-tional matters are of such importance that a court may take notice of them
ex mero motu.’ ” Naylor v. Naylor,
. Liberty Mutual does not argue any error in regard to the award of costs.