¶2But for one exception, I concur. The exception is that I express no opinion on footnote 1 to the main opinion, because neither Seafarers'Welfare Plan v. Dixon, 512 So.2d 53 (Ala. 1987), nor Hood v. PrudentialInsurance Co. of America, 522 So.2d 265 (Ala. 1988), expressly discusses the precise issue of whether the Alabama tort of bad faith constitutes a "law of [Alabama] which regulates insurance" within the meaning of the ERISA savings clause, 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(A), although a resolution of this issue may be implicit in the general holding of each of those cases that this tort is preempted by ERISA.
841 So. 2d 233
Palmore v. First Unum
Decided June 28, 2002
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 2002-06-28
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on 522 So. 2d 265 - Hood v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America · 512 So. 2d 53 - Seafarer's Welfare Plan v. Dixon
Decided 2002-06-28