Rel: August 7, 2026
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2026
SC-2025-1015
Ex parte Association of County Commissions of Alabama
Liability Self-Insurance Fund, Inc.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: Association of County Commissions of Alabama Liability
Self-Insurance Fund, Inc.
v.
Doris Jordan et al.)
(Greene Circuit Court: CV-24-900048)
BRYAN, Justice.
The Association of County Commissions of Alabama Liability SelfInsurance Fund, Inc. ("the association"), petitions this Court for a writ of SC-2025-1015
mandamus directing the Greene Circuit Court ("the circuit court") to
vacate an order staying the underlying declaratory-judgment action. For
the reasons explained below, we grant the petition and issue the writ
with specific directions to the circuit court.
Background
In February 2020, a group of individuals who had allegedly worked
for Greene County ("the county workers")1 sued the Greene County
Commission ("the county commission"), asserting claims of negligence,
the tort of outrage, trespass, and nuisance against the county
commission; that action is referred to as "the tort action." According to
the county workers, they had suffered injuries caused by their exposure
to rodent infestations and faulty air-conditioning and roofing systems
while working in a county courthouse.
1The county workers are Jonathan Benison, Vincent Hardwick,
LaJaffery Carpenter, Doris Jordan, Elston Carpenter, Steven Davis,
Charles Davis, Betty Duncan, Jeffery Grant, Cheryl Hardy, Edward
Hutton, Tommy Johnson, Arnelia Johnson, Lillie Jones-Osborne,
Barbara McShan, Henry McWhorter, Cynthia Milton, Verinoica MortonJones, Rodney Pham, Deloris Plump, Jeremy Rancer, Debbie Rice,
Melvin Smith, Inez Smith, Mary Snoddy, Akira Spencer, De'Shayla
Steele, Shameka Taylor, Monica Tuner, Earnestine Wade, William
Walton, and Emonfre' White.
2
SC-2025-1015
During the relevant times, the county commission was a member of
the association's self-insurance fund. Under the liability-coverage terms
of the association's self-insurance agreement ("the insurance
agreement"), the association had a duty to defend the county commission
against certain claims. According to the association, it has thus far
provided the county commission with a defense in the tort action
pursuant to a reservation of rights. See Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's,
London v. Southern Nat. Gas Co., 142 So. 3d 436, 462 (Ala. 2013)("[A]
reservation of rights allows the insurer to challenge its liability on the
underlying claim while still fulfilling its obligations under the policy.").
However, the materials before this Court contain no documentation
concerning the reservation of rights.
In June 2024, the association commenced the declaratory-judgment
action underlying this mandamus petition ("the declaratory-judgment
action"), naming as defendants the county commission and the county
workers. The association alleged that, under certain exclusionary
provisions, the county workers' claims against the county commission
were not covered by the terms of the insurance agreement. The
3
SC-2025-1015
association also alleged that it had no duty to defend the county
commission in the tort action based on the exclusionary provisions.
The county workers moved to dismiss the declaratory-judgment
action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., arguing that the action
was not ripe, and therefore not justiciable, before the tort action was
resolved. The county commission also moved to dismiss the declaratoryjudgment action, arguing, in relevant part, that the association had a
duty to defend the county commission in the tort action.
On December 1, 2025, the circuit court entered an order stating, in
relevant part:
"A hearing was held on November 13, 2025[,2] to address
the [m]otion[s] to [d]ismiss filed by [the county workers and
the county commission]. … The Court heard oral arguments
from all parties. Based upon those arguments, as well as the
post-hearing pleadings filed by the parties, the Court is of the
opinion that [the association]'s [d]eclaratory[-j]udgment
[action] should be STAYED pending the outcome of the
underlying claim that gave rise to this declaratory[-]judgment
action.
"[The association]'s complaint for [a d]eclaratory
[j]udgment seeks to have this Court determine whether [the
association] owes coverage for the claims asserted by [the
county workers] in [the tort action]. [The association] has
offered no explanation for why [it] waited over four and a half
2No transcript of the November 13, 2025, hearing has been provided
to this Court.
4
SC-2025-1015
years to file this declaratory[-]judgment action. The coverage
issues raised by [the association] relate back to the factual
basis asserted in the complaint filed in the underlying claim.
The Court is not convinced that this case is not due to be
dismissed on the grounds that it is time[-]barred pursuant to
Breland v. City of Fairhope, 229 So. 3d 1078 ([Ala.] 2016)[;]
however, the Court is of the opinion that staying this action is
a more prudent course of action. The Court finds, based on
the pleadings filed and the arguments by the parties, that[,]
to address the issues raised by [the association] in this
declaratory[-]judgment action would supersede the
determination of an issue or issues already pending in the
[tort action]. As such, this action is hereby STAYED pending
the outcome of the [tort action]."
(Capitalization in original.)
The association's present mandamus petition followed. The county
workers and the county commission filed answers responding to the
association's mandamus petition. However, in substance, the county
commission has stated only the following:
"The [county c]ommission takes no position on the
[circuit c]ourt's order staying the case. However, the [county
c]ommission reserves the right, after appropriate discovery,
to challenge whether all of the [a]ssociation's claims are
barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Also, the
[county c]ommission reserve[s] the right to amend its
[a]nswer to assert appropriate counter-claims."
The county commission's answer at 4.
5
SC-2025-1015
Standard of Review
" ' "This Court has consistently
held that the writ of mandamus is an
extraordinary and drastic writ and that
a party seeking such a writ must meet
certain criteria. We will issue the writ
of mandamus only when (1) the
petitioner has a clear legal right to the
relief sought; (2) the respondent has an
imperative duty to perform and has
refused to do so; (3) the petitioner has
no other adequate remedy; and (4) this
Court's jurisdiction is properly
invoked. Ex parte Mercury Fin. Corp.,
715 So. 2d 196, 198 (Ala. 1997).
Because mandamus is an
extraordinary remedy, the standard by
which this Court reviews a petition for
the writ of mandamus is to determine
whether the trial court has clearly
abused its discretion. See Ex parte
Rudolph, 515 So. 2d 704, 706 (Ala.
1987)."
" 'Ex parte Flint Constr. Co., 775 So. 2d 805, 808
(Ala. 2000).'
"Ex parte Barrows, 892 So. 2d 914, 916 (Ala. 2004)."
Ex parte Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 921 So. 2d 418, 419 (Ala. 2005).
Analysis
In its petition, the association argues that this Court should issue
a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to vacate its order staying
6
SC-2025-1015
the declaratory-judgment action.3 As support for its argument, the
association relies primarily on this Court's decision in Ex parte Alfa, 921
So. 2d at 418.
In Ex parte Alfa, Alfa Mutual Insurance Company ("Alfa") had
issued a homeowner's insurance policy to Toby Arnette that provided
specified personal-liability coverage and an exclusion of coverage for
3In their answer to the association's petition, the county workers
primarily complain about the association's delay in bringing the
declaratory-judgment action after their tort action had already been
pending for more than four years. However, as noted above, the circuit
court stayed the declaratory-judgment action and expressly refrained
from dismissing that action at that time based on any alleged delay in
commencing that action.
Clearly, by virtue of the circuit court's stay of the declaratoryjudgment action, the circuit court has elected to further delay any
adjudication of the issues raised in that action. Therefore, we decline to
consider any alleged delay by the association as a justification for staying, and thereby further delaying, the declaratory-judgment action. Cf. Ex
parte Jones, 147 So. 3d 415, 419 (Ala. 2013)("This Court may affirm the
judgment of the trial court upon any valid legal ground even if that
ground was not argued before or considered by, and even if it was rejected
by, the trial court.").
The county workers also seemingly argue that the tort action
should not be stayed in favor of litigating the declaratory-judgment
action. The mandamus petition before this Court is not directed to any
order entered in the tort action. Therefore, we express no opinion
regarding whether a stay should or should not be imposed in the tort
action.
7
SC-2025-1015
" 'bodily injury which is either expected or intended by an insured; or
which is a result of a willful or malicious act of an insured.' " Id. at 419.
In 2003, Jimmie Young sued Arnette, alleging that, in 2002,
Arnette had physically attacked Young by punching and kicking Young
in the face. In a separate declaratory-judgment action, Alfa sought a
determination that it had no duty to defend or to indemnify Arnette
regarding Young's claims. Young, whom Alfa had named as a defendant
in the declaratory-judgment action, moved for a stay of that action until
Young's tort action was resolved, which motion the trial court granted.
This Court subsequently granted Alfa's petition for a writ of
mandamus to the trial court, directing that court to vacate its order
staying the declaratory-judgment action. In so doing, we reasoned:
" 'This Court has consistently held that a
declaratory judgment action will not be
entertained if there is pending a prior action to
which the same persons are parties and in which
the same issues may be adjudicated ....
" ' "...."
" 'If a court is allowed to entertain a
declaratory judgment action, then its judgment
might be inconsistent with an order entered in the
prior pending action dealing with the same issue.'
8
SC-2025-1015
"Evans v. Cumberland Lake Country Club, Inc., 682 So. 2d 11,
15 (Ala. 1996)(citations omitted). 'An action for declaratory
judgment may not supersede the determination of an issue
already pending in another action filed prior to the
declaratory judgment [action].' Mathis v. Auto-Owners Ins.
Co., 387 So. 2d 166, 167 (Ala. 1980).
"In Smith v. North River Insurance Co., 360 So. 2d 313
(Ala. 1978), this Court held that while an action was pending
against the insured, the insurer could bring a declaratoryjudgment action to determine whether the insurer was
obligated under the provisions of the insured's policy to defend
the insured in the earlier action. In Smith, the insured
wounded an individual and the individual sued the insured
alleging negligence and wantonness. The insured requested
that North River Insurance defend him in the action. North
River Insurance refused and filed a declaratory-judgment
action to determine its duty to defend and whether its policy
with the insured covered the incident. The insured's policy
excluded from coverage ' "bodily injury or property damage
which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of
the insured." ' 360 So. 2d at 315. This Court held that the
insurer's pursuit of the declaratory judgment was proper
because the issue in the declaratory-judgment action was
different from the issue in the personal-injury suit.
Specifically, this Court held:
" 'The issue raised in the declaratory judgment
action was whether the insurance company was
obligated, under the policy provisions, to defend
the action brought ... against the insured. This
issue turned on whether the injury, the basis of the
personal injury suit, was "expected or intended" as
those terms are used in the contract between the
insurance company and its insured. That is not
the issue in the personal injury suit.'
"360 So. 2d at 315.
9
SC-2025-1015
"Here, Alfa, like the insurer in [Smith] that requested a
determination of its duty to defend the insured in light of the
circumstances and the language in the insured's policy, seeks
a judgment determining its duty to defend its insured. This
determination is different from the issue presented in Young's
personal-injury action."
Ex parte Alfa, 921 So. 2d at 419-20 (emphasis added).
As noted above, in this case, the circuit court determined that,
"based on the pleadings filed and the arguments by the parties, … to
address the issues raised by [the association] in this
declaratory[-]judgment action would supersede the determination of an
issue or issues already pending in the [tort action]." (Emphasis added.)
As this Court noted in Ex parte Alfa, " '[a]n action for declaratory
judgment may not supersede the determination of an issue already
pending in another action filed prior to the declaratory judgment
[action].' " 921 So. 2d at 419-20 (quoting Mathis v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.,
387 So. 2d 166, 167 (Ala. 1980)). However, the circuit court's order did
not specify which "issue or issues" pending in the tort action might be
superseded by resolution of the declaratory-judgment action.
In its petition, the association argues that the circuit court's
decision in this regard "was incorrect and an abuse of discretion,
particularly as regards a [determination of the] duty to defend, which will
10
SC-2025-1015
never be addressed in the [t]ort action." The association's petition at 14.
Later in its petition, the association states that "the [circuit] court could
stay or dismiss one issue while still making a determination on the nonidentical issues." Id. at 19 (emphasis added). However, similar to the
circuit court's vague order, the association's petition does not suggest
which issues in particular might be properly stayed or dismissed, and it
does not appear from the materials before this Court that the association
asked the circuit court to make such a specific determination following
the entry of the December 1, 2025, order.
With the foregoing in mind, we begin our analysis of the
association's petition by noting the county workers' observation that
some of the coverage issues raised in the association's petition relate not
to categorical exclusion from coverage but instead to the limits of
available coverage under certain provisions of the insurance agreement.
See the association's petition at 21 ("If the claims qualify as an
'occurrence,' then the [a]ssociation seeks a determination that they arise
out of the continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same
conditions, so the single occurrence limit is all the coverage that is
available." (emphasis added)), and id. at 24 ("[T]o the extent 'other
11
SC-2025-1015
hazards' alleged in the [t]ort [a]ction are for 'fungi or bacteria,' the
[a]ssociation seeks a determination that those claims/injuries are subject
to the 'Fungi or Bacteria' limit." (emphasis added)). Those coverage
issues seemingly pertain to the extent or limit of the association's duty to
indemnify the county commission and not to the association's categorical
duty to defend -- or not -- the county commission against the county
workers' claims. See Tanner v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 874 So. 2d
1058, 1063 (Ala. 2003)("Liability insurance coverage includes two
separate duties: (1) the duty to defend; and (2) the duty to indemnify.").
The association has cited no precedent for this Court's issuing a
writ of mandamus to prohibit a trial court from staying its consideration
of such indemnification questions. Although the declaratory-judgment
action at issue in Ex parte Alfa, had sought a judgment declaring that
the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured, this Court's
analysis in support of issuing the writ of mandamus turned on the
insurer's request for a determination regarding its duty to defend.
Indeed, as noted above, the Ex parte Alfa, Court specifically cited Smith
v. North River Insurance Co., 360 So. 2d 313, 319 (Ala. 1978), in
reasoning that, "[h]ere, Alfa, like the insurer in [Smith] that requested a
12
SC-2025-1015
determination of its duty to defend the insured in light of the
circumstances and the language in the insured's policy, seeks a judgment
determining its duty to defend its insured." 921 So. 2d at 420 (emphasis
added); see also id. (distinguishing MacMillan-Bloedel, Inc. v. Firemen's
Insurance Co. of New Jersey, 558 F. Supp. 596 (S.D. Ala. 1983), on the
ground that "[t]he federal district court held that the declaratoryjudgment action was premature because the liability between the
plaintiff and the insured had not yet been decided. Here, the insurer is
seeking a determination as to whether it has a duty to defend the insured
in the plaintiff's action against the insured.")(emphasis added)).
" ' "It is well established that it is not the function of an
appellate court to create, research, or argue an issue on behalf
of the [petitioner]." ' Mottershaw v. Ledbetter, 148 So. 3d 45,
54 (Ala. 2013) (quoting Gonzalez v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of
Alabama, 760 So. 2d 878, 883 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000)). A writ
of mandamus is an extraordinary writ that will be issued only
when the petitioner establishes a 'clear legal right' to relief.
Ex parte Davis, 930 So. 2d [497,] 499 [(Ala. 2005)]."
Ex parte Drury Hotels Co., 303 So. 3d 1188, 1193 (Ala. 2020).
Therefore, we will consider the arguments set forth in the
association's mandamus petition only insofar as they pertain to its
potential duty to defend the county commission in the tort action; we
13
SC-2025-1015
decline to issue the writ in this case to require the circuit court to vacate
its stay of the declaratory-judgment action for a consideration of the
extent of the association's duty to indemnify the county commission.
Regarding the question of its duty to defend the county commission
in the tort action, the association argues that the declaratory-judgment
action should proceed for a determination regarding whether the conduct
underlying the county workers' claims against the county commission
qualify as an "occurrence," which is defined by the insurance agreement
as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to …
substantially the same general harmful conditions or series of related
accidents."
The association also argues that certain exclusionary provisions
pertaining to "expected or intended injury" may apply; those provisions
exclude from coverage
"a. Any claim or suit for any injury or damage expected
or intended from the standpoint of the covered person. …
"….
"e. Any claim or suit for any injury or damage suffered
when the covered person is aware of any fact, circumstance or
event that should reasonably be expected to result in a claim
or suit and fails to take reasonable steps to prevent injury or
14
SC-2025-1015
damage resulting from or related to such fact, circumstance
or event."
(Emphasis added.)
The association also cites a provision excluding from coverage
"a. Any claim or suit seeking damages or equitable relief
arising out of the actual, alleged or threatened discharge,
dispersal, disposal, seepage, migration, release, escape, or
presence of a pollutant or contaminant at any time."
(Emphasis added.)
Additionally, the association cites a provision excluding from
coverage
"a. Any claim or suit against any covered person for:
"….
"(3) Any injury or damage arising out of the
actual, alleged or threatened exposure to asbestos
or any other hazardous material or substance by
any person, including inhalation, ingestion or
absorption of and any prolonged or repeated
exposure to asbestos or any other hazardous
material or substance …."
(Emphasis added.)
We express no opinion regarding the applicability of any categorical
exclusionary provisions cited by the association to the claims asserted by
the county workers against the county commission in the tort action.
15
SC-2025-1015
However, we agree with the association that, pursuant to this Court's
decision in Ex parte Alfa, the circuit court exceeded its discretion by
staying the declaratory-judgment action to the extent that the circuit
court refused to consider the association's request for a determination
regarding its duty to defend the county commission in the tort action.
The county workers argue that the circumstances of Ex parte Alfa
and Smith are distinguishable from the circumstances presented here
because, they say, those cases involved allegations of only intentional
torts. However, the county workers' assertion is incorrect. The injured
party in Smith asserted claims of negligence and wantonness against the
insured for injuries sustained when the insured was shooting a different
person to death while at a party. 360 So. 2d at 314.
As noted above, the basis for the Smith Court's conclusion that a
declaratory-judgment action to determine the insurance company's duty
to defend could coexist alongside a pending tort action was a
determination that the two actions presented different issues. The
declaratory-judgment action "turned on whether the injury, the basis of
the personal injury suit, was 'expected or intended,' as those terms are
16
SC-2025-1015
used in the contract between the insurance company and its insured,"
which was "not the issue in the personal injury suit." Id. at 315.
As the county workers acknowledge in their answer, this Court has
explained that
"[w]hether an insurance company owes a duty to provide
an insured with a defense to proceedings instituted against
him must be determined primarily from the allegations of the
complaint. Ladner & Co. v. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co., 347
So. 2d 100, 102 (Ala. 1977). If the injured party's complaint
alleges an accident or occurrence which comes within the
coverage of the policy, the insurer is obligated to defend,
regardless of the ultimate liability of the insured. Ladner &
Co., 347 So. 2d at 102.
"If the complaint suggests that the injury alleged may
not be within the coverage of the policy, then other facts
outside the complaint may be taken into consideration.
Ladner & Co., 347 So. 2d at 103."
United States Fid. and Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So. 2d 1164, 1167
(Ala. 1985).
In other words, in determining an insurance company's duty to
defend its insured in an action against the insured at any given time, the
pertinent inquiry is the nature or character of the claims or suit against
the insured at that time and whether claims or suits of that sort are
covered under the terms of the insurance agreement. A trial court can
generally resolve that inquiry based on the circumstances presented
17
SC-2025-1015
without attempting to adjudicate the issue of the insured's liability to the
allegedly injured party. See generally id. at 1166-68 (explaining how
Alabama's jurisprudence has interpreted various terms used in
liability-insurance policies to determine coverage).
However, this Court has cautioned that, although a trial court may
properly determine an insurance company's present duty to defend based
on a particular procedural posture, the nature of the action against the
insured can change as litigation develops. In Ladner & Co. v. Southern
Guaranty Insurance Co., 347 So. 2d 100, 103-04 (Ala. 1977), we held:
"[A]s presently postured, the defendant insurance companies
are not presently required to defend the lawsuit pending
against [the insured]. The allegations of their complaint
allege only intentional acts by [the insured]; and nothing in
the record before us indicates that any other theory of liability
is asserted. True, [the insured] denies knowing that the lots
it sold to the plaintiffs would flood, but that is a matter to be
determined in the lawsuit. Its denial in no way changes the
nature of the claim made by the plaintiffs.
"In holding that the insurance companies have no
present obligation to defend the suit against their insured, we
must also point out, as has been so succinctly stated by Judge
Learned Hand in Lee v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 178
F.2d 750, 752, 753 (2d Cir. 1949):
" '… [T]he injured party might conceivably
recover on a claim, which, as he had alleged it, was
outside the policy; but which, as it turned out, the
insurer was bound to pay. Such is the plasticity of
18
SC-2025-1015
modern pleading that no one can be positive that
that could not happen. In such a case of course the
insurer would not have to defend; yet, even then,
as soon as, during the course of the trial, the
changed character of the claim appeared, we need
not say that the insured might not insist that the
insurer take over the defence. …'
"Under the present Alabama rules of procedure, it is
quite possible that the character of the plaintiffs' claim
against [the insured] may change, as Judge Hand noted, even
during the course of the trial; and, of course, the plaintiffs'
complaint may be amended even after the evidence is in to
conform to that evidence. Because that is so, the insurers
should be mindful that:
" 'It is clear that where a claim potentially
may become one which is within the scope of the
policy, the insurance company's refusal to defend
at the outset of the controversy is a decision it
makes at its own peril. …' Cadwallader v. New
Amsterdam Casualty Co., 396 Pa. 582, 152 A.2d
484, 488 (1959).
"In some jurisdictions, it has been held that the failure
of an insurer to defend, relying on the allegations of the
complaint against its insured, is a step taken at its own peril;
and it does so at the risk of becoming liable to the insured for
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the insured in his
defense in the event it ultimately develops that it has a duty
to defend. Bandy v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 458 F.2d 900
(5th Cir. 1972)."
In Tanner, 874 So. 2d at 1065, this Court "summarize[d] the law for
determining the existence or nonexistence of an insurer's duty to defend."
This Court stated:
19
SC-2025-1015
"If the allegedly injured person's complaint against the
insured alleges a covered accident or occurrence, then the
insurer owes the duty to defend even though the evidence may
eventually prove that the gravamen of the complaint was not
a covered accident or occurrence. If the complaint against the
insured does not, on its face, allege a covered accident or
occurrence, but the evidence proves one, then the insurer
likewise owes the duty to defend. The insurer owes no duty
to defend only if neither does the complaint against the
insured allege a covered accident or occurrence nor does the
evidence in the litigation between insurer and insured prove
a covered accident or occurrence. [Acceptance Ins. Co. v.
Brown, 832 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 2001); Pacific Indem. Co. v. Run-AFord Co., 276 Ala. 311, 161 So. 2d 789 (1964); and Ladner &
Co. v. Southern Guar. Ins. Co., 347 So. 2d 100 (Ala. 1977)]. If
the allegedly injured person's complaint against the insured
alleges or the evidence proves not only claims based on a
covered accident or occurrence but also claims not based on a
covered accident or occurrence, the insurer owes a duty to
defend at least the claims based on a covered accident or
occurrence. E.g. Acceptance Ins. Co., supra; [Porterfield v.
Audubon Indem. Co., 856 So. 2d 789 (Ala. 2002); and]
Townsend Ford, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 656 So. 2d 360
(Ala. 1995)."
Id. See also Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, 928
So. 2d 1006, 1011-13 (Ala. 2005)(applying a "two-pronged" analysis in
determining an insurance company's duty to defend).
Conclusion
Regarding the association's request in the declaratory-judgment
action for a determination regarding its present duty to defend the county
commission against the county workers' claims in the tort action, the
20
SC-2025-1015
association has "established a clear legal right to have the stay vacated,
and the [circuit] court exceeded the scope of its discretion when it issued
the stay …." Ex parte Alfa, 921 So. 2d at 421. "Therefore, we grant the
petition and issue a writ directing the [circuit] court to vacate its order
staying [the association]'s declaratory-judgment action." Id.
In so doing, we direct the circuit court to proceed with the
declaratory-judgment action to the extent that the association seeks a
determination regarding its present duty to defend the county
commission in the tort action. However, we neither express any opinion
regarding how the circuit court should resolve that question nor express
any opinion regarding how the association's duty to defend might change
based on any evidentiary developments in the declaratory-judgment
action or in the tort action.
Moreover, our decision does not require the circuit court to vacate
its stay of the declaratory-judgment action for a determination of any
indemnification issue raised by the association's complaint in that action.
As explained above, the association has cited no precedent for issuing a
writ of mandamus for that purpose.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
21
SC-2025-1015
Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, Cook, McCool,
and Parker, JJ., concur.
22