Frederick Van Diver v. Anietra Mays

── Frederick Van Diver v. Anietra Mays ── Court: Supreme Court of Alabama Date: April 10, 2026 Author: Chris McCool Category: General Rel: April 10, 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-2025-0660 _________________________ Frederick Van Diver v. Anietra Mays Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (CV-23-900805) McCOOL, Justice. Frederick Van Diver has appealed from a default judgment entered against him by the Montgomery Circuit Court. For the reasons set forth SC-2025-0660 herein, we affirm the judgment insofar as it imposes liability on Van Diver, but we reverse the award of damages and remand the case to the circuit court for that court to reconsider the damages. Facts and Procedural History In June 2023, Anietra Mays filed a complaint against Van Diver; American Benefit, LLC ("American Benefit"); and Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company ("Omaha"). According to the complaint, at all times relevant to this case, Van Diver was an employee of American Benefit, which "was a subsidiary of Omaha." In support of her complaint, Mays alleged that, during the time that she and her husband were in the process of divorcing, Van Diver had assisted her husband in "obtain[ing] life insurance on [her] life without [her] knowledge." Specifically, Mays alleged that Van Diver had "forged [her] signature on the application for life insurance" and that her husband had then purchased the life- insurance policy from Omaha and had named himself the beneficiary of the policy. Relying on those allegations, Mays asserted a claim of fraud against Van Diver and asserted a claim of negligent or wanton hiring, training, and supervision against American Benefit and Omaha. Mays did not seek a specific amount of damages in her complaint but, instead, 2 SC-2025-0660 sought a judgment "in an amount that exceeds the minimal jurisdictional limits of [the circuit court] … whether the same be compensatory or punitive." In July 2023, Omaha filed a motion to dismiss Mays's claim against it, arguing that it "did not issue any [life-insurance] policy to [Mays] or her ex-husband." In fact, Omaha argued, the application for a life- insurance policy had not even been "submitted to Omaha; it [had been] submitted to United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, which is a different legal entity," and, according to Omaha, "United of Omaha [had] declined to issue the policy." (Emphasis omitted.) Omaha included with its motion a letter that United had sent to Mays, informing her that her application for a life-insurance policy had been denied. There is no indication in the record that, following the filing of Omaha's motion to dismiss, any activity occurred in this case until June 2024, when the circuit court scheduled a hearing on that motion to be held the following month. It is unclear from the record whether that hearing occurred, but, in September 2024, Mays stipulated to Omaha's dismissal from the case, and the circuit court entered an order to that effect. The circuit court also scheduled a status conference to be held in 3 SC-2025-0660 October 2024. Again, it is unclear from the record whether that hearing occurred, but Mays contends that it did and that, at that hearing, the circuit court "r