Mandamus Review of Rulings on Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Facial and Factual Challenges
Ex parte Safeway Ins. Co. of Alabama, Inc., No. 1061613 provides an interesting discussion regarding mandamus review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss based on subject matter jurisdiction.
In this case, Galvin sued Safeway, her uninsured-motorist ("UM") carrier, for bad faith failure to pay an insurance claim stemming from a car accident in which she and an uninsured motorist were involved. Safeway filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the bad faith claim was unripe because neither the uninsured motorist's liability nor Galvin's damages were determined.
In response, Galvin submitted an affidavit from her attorney detailing the factual basis for the bad-faith claim. The trial court denied Safeway's motion and Safeway filed a motion to reconsider, submitting an affidavit from its claims manager containing additional factual information. The trial court considered the affidavit Safeway submitted, but denied the motion to reconsider. Safeway filed a petition for writ of mandamus.
In connection with its preliminary statement of the proper standard of review, the court discussed the two possible types of challenges to jurisdiction that a defendant can assert in a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. A Rule 12(b)(1) motion can allege either a facial challenge, in which the court accepts as true the allegations on the face of the complaint, or a factual challenge, which requires consideration of evidence beyond the face of the complaint.
When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss based on a facial challenge to the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction, the appellate court must not afford the trial court's ruling a presumption of correctness and must accept the allegations in the complaint as true. When a factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is made, however, the analysis changes somewhat. Where the defendant submits evidence to the trial court indicating that subject matter jurisdiction does not exist, the plaintiff then bears the burden of establishing factually that it does exist. In response to Safeway's initial showing of unripeness, Galvin failed to put forth any evidence that her claim was, in fact, ripe. Accordingly, Safeway had a clear legal right to have the claims against it dismissed and the writ issued accordingly.
