In re: Austin Moore, Adam Day, and A&A Investment Property, LLC v. Woodrow Alan Carter

── In re: Austin Moore, Adam Day, and A&A Investment Property, LLC v. Woodrow Alan Carter ── Case No.: SC-2025-0452 Court: Supreme Court of Alabama Date: March 13, 2026 Author: Chris McCool Category: General Rel: March 13, 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________ SC-2025-0452 _________________________ Ex parte Woodrow Alan Carter PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Austin Moore, Adam Day, and A&A Investment Property, LLC v. Woodrow Alan Carter et al.) (Dallas Circuit Court: CV-24-900347) McCOOL, Justice. SC-2025-0452 Woodrow Alan Carter is a defendant in an action currently pending in the Dallas Circuit Court ("the circuit court"), and he has petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus, asking us to direct the circuit court to grant his motion for a change of venue. For the reasons set forth herein, we grant the petition and issue the writ. Facts and Procedural History Austin Moore, Adam Day, and A&A Investment Property, LLC ("the plaintiffs"), are the owners of real property -- specifically, a commercial building ("the building") -- that is located in Dallas County. At the time of the events giving rise to this case, the plaintiffs had an insurance policy ("the policy") that had been sold and issued to them in Dallas County by Auto-Owners Insurance Company ("Auto-Owners"), and the policy generally provided insurance coverage for "direct physical loss of or damage to" the building. According to the plaintiffs, in June 2024 the building was damaged "as a result of trespass, vandalism and theft," so they submitted an insurance claim to Auto-Owners, which employs Carter as a claims representative. Carter "work[s] out of [his] home office in Mobile County," and, although his duties require him to travel to other Alabama counties, Dallas County is not among them. 2 SC-2025-0452 However, Carter was tasked with reviewing the plaintiffs' insurance claim "due to overflow." Following an inspection of the building, which was conducted by "a third-party independent investigator," Carter sent the plaintiffs a letter explaining that their insurance claim had been denied. In that letter, Carter purported to quote a provision of the policy that, he said, prohibited insurance coverage for any damage that occurred to the building if the building was "vacant" at the time it was damaged. According to Carter, that provision stated, in relevant part: "6. Vacancy "a. Description of Terms "(1) As used in this Vacancy Condition, the term … vacant ha[s] the meaning[] set forth in (1)(a) and (1)(b) below: "(a) … [The] building is vacant when it does not contain enough business personal property to conduct customary operations. "(b) … [The] building is vacant unless at least 31% of its total square footage is: "…. 3 SC-2025-0452 "2) Used by the building owner to conduct customary operations. "…. "b. Vacancy Provisions "If the building where loss or damage occurs has been vacant for more than 60 consecutive days before that loss or damage occurs: "(1) We will n