## Facts

- Ronald Mills and James Tucker were Alabama residents who worked for Tri-State Motor Transit Company (Tri-State) as over-the-road truck drivers hauling specialized freight across multiple states.
- Tri-State was a Delaware corporation headquartered in Missouri, and the drivers’ trips were dispatched from Tennessee.
- Mills and Tucker mailed their employment applications to Tri-State’s Missouri headquarters.
- Tri-State required each driver to attend and complete an orientation school in Missouri before Tri-State would check references and finalize hiring.
- After being hired, Mills and Tucker performed most of their driving work outside Alabama.
- Tucker alleged he suffered a work-related injury in Tennessee; Mills alleged he suffered a work-related injury in Illinois.
- Despite the out-of-state injuries, Mills and Tucker filed separate workers’ compensation actions in an Alabama trial court seeking benefits under Alabama’s Workers’ Compensation Act.
- Tri-State moved to dismiss both actions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Alabama’s extraterritorial workers’ compensation statute, Ala. Code § 25-5-35, did not apply and that Missouri provided the appropriate workers’ compensation forum.
- The trial court refused to dismiss the cases.
- Tri-State filed original petitions for writs of mandamus in the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, asking that court to direct the trial court to dismiss both actions.

## Issues

1. Whether Alabama had subject-matter jurisdiction under Ala. Code § 25-5-35(d)(1) because the drivers’ employment was “principally localized” in Alabama.
2. Whether Alabama had subject-matter jurisdiction under Ala. Code § 25-5-35(d)(2) because the drivers were working under contracts of hire “made in” Alabama in employment not principally localized in any state.
3. Whether mandamus was available to require dismissal when the statutory prerequisites for Alabama’s extraterritorial coverage were not satisfied.

## Decision

- The Court of Civil Appeals granted Tri-State’s petitions for writs of mandamus.
- The court held the drivers’ employment was not “principally localized” in Alabama for purposes of Ala. Code § 25-5-35.
- The court held the contracts of hire were not “made in” Alabama because the final acts required to form the employment relationship occurred in Missouri.
- Because neither § 25-5-35(d)(1) nor § 25-5-35(d)(2) applied, the Alabama trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The appellate court directed the trial court to dismiss both workers’ compensation actions.

## Legal Principles

- Alabama applies its workers’ compensation benefits to injuries occurring outside Alabama only when the employee satisfies one of the conditions in Ala. Code § 25-5-35(d).
- Under § 25-5-35(d)(1), an employee injured out of state may recover Alabama benefits only if the employee’s employment was “principally localized” in Alabama at the time of injury.
- “Principally localized” employment is defined by § 25-5-35(b) and generally requires that the employer have a place of business in the state and the employee regularly work at or from that place, or that the employee be domiciled in the state and spend a substantial part of working time in the state.
- Under § 25-5-35(d)(2), an employee injured out of state may recover Alabama benefits if the employee was working under a contract of hire made in Alabama in employment not principally localized in any state.
- For § 25-5-35(d)(2), the place where the contract of hire is “made” is determined by ordinary contract-formation rules, including where the last act necessary to create the contract occurred.
- Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, but it may issue to compel dismissal when the petitioner shows a clear legal right to relief and the trial court is legally required to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

Because Mills and Tucker drove primarily outside Alabama from a Tennessee dispatch point, their employment was not principally localized in Alabama, and because the final steps completing their hiring occurred in Missouri, their contracts of hire were not made in Alabama; therefore, Ala. Code § 25-5-35 did not give Alabama courts subject-matter jurisdiction over their out-of-state injury claims, and mandamus properly issued directing dismissal of both actions.


Mills v. Tri-State Motor Transit Company, 541 So. 2d 557 (1989)