Ex Parte Frontier Corporation Supreme Court of Alabama

TABLE OF CONTENTS¹

¹ Petitioners adopt and reassert all portions in their original Petition and Brief in addition to those set out herein.

TABLE OF CASES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES.

REPLY ARGUMENT.

CONCLUSION.

TABLE OF CASES

CASES:

Southern United Fire Insurance Co. v. Knight, 736 So.2d. 582 (Ala. 1999).................3, 4

REPLY ARGUMENT

The present case involves only intrastate commerce, and as such does not fulfill one of the requirements for application of the FAA in contradiction of Alabama's clear public policy against the enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration clauses.

The issue presented in this case only involves the question of whether the purchase of the automobile insurance policy by the affected interstate commerce. The issue is answered in the documents and exhibits presented in this matter with the ' Petition and attached Brief, and specifically in reading this Court's decision in Southern United Fire Insurance Co. v. Knight, 736 So.2d. 582 (Ala. 1999).

Southern United in the present case argues in Brief that the are analyzing the “interstate vs. intrastate” issue under the old “contemplation of the parties” test. However, the Knight case cited above, and as cited in the original Petition and Brief, is a post-Allied-Bruce Terminix case, and held that the transaction in that case involving a local seller of a vehicle, other local factors, and Southern United, which is an Alabama insurance company, (almost identical facts to the present case) did not involve interstate commerce, and Alabama's statute and public policy against arbitration controlled.

Additionally, Southern United in Brief states that the themselves assert that part of the claims against Southern United involve the failure of Southern United to provide a defense of the and provide ultimate payment to third parties. Southern United incorrectly assumes that the were referring to the finance company for their vehicle. The were referring to Southern

United being obligated in part to pay for medical expenses and property damage sustained by the driver and/or passengers in the other vehicle involved in the March 5 accident with . Indeed, after the accident happened and the were informed that Southern United had supposedly canceled their automobile coverage and would not pay claims as to the forgoing accident, the sold the vehicle (Ford Thunderbird), and the lien-holder in Texas was “paid off”. Consequently, the action brought by the in Baldwin County against Southern United would not and does not involve the prior lien-holder of the vehicle insured and involved in the accident.

CONCLUSION

The foregoing argument and legal authority as well as the , original Petition and Brief filed in this matter, clearly reflect that and Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration should have been denied. The transaction in this case, the purchase of automobile insurance by the from and do not involve interstate commerce. The FAA is inapplicable to the present arbitration clause. Alabama law applies to render the arbitration clause unenforceable and void.

Respectfully submitted,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Counsel for and does hereby certify that has served a copy of the foregoing document upon the following, by placing same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed, this .