Hall Eady is a commercial and financial services litigator. For financial services companies, his practice includes defending against borrower and customer-driven claims, and providing advice regarding recoupment options, including lien rights, closing errors, title insurance, mortgage insurance and correspondent/broker agreements. He has served as the firm’s lead relationship attorney for several large financial services companies over the years with a focus on the delivery of consistent and high-quality legal services at competitive rates. Hall prides himself on listening closely to the needs of his clients and helping his clients identify the best solution for their specific and tailored legal needs, which can include anything from a single borrower lawsuit to a class action to regulatory and compliance issues impacting the operations of the company. His curiosity and genuine concern for his clients is the driving force behind his practice and experience.
For commercial clients, Hall’s practice includes representing businesses in contract negotiations, general commercial and contract disputes, insurance claims, business owner disputes, real property disputes and claims against professional service providers including insurance brokers. Hall also has represented several construction companies in contract negotiations and against large claims of defective construction and has familiarity with the legal issues impacting construction-related businesses. He has been named as one of the The Best Lawyers in America® since 2015 for Commercial Litigation and has more recently been recognized with the same distinction for Real Estate Litigation, Banking and Finance Litigation, Employment Law – Management, Labor and Employment Litigation, Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law and Construction Litigation.
Hall also regularly represents businesses in pursuit of affirmative recoveries, including insurance, breach of contract, and claims related to professional duties owed to these companies. He enjoys this plaintiff’s part of his practice and has been appointed to the American Bar Association’s Tort Trial & Insurance Section’s standing Plaintiff’s Practice Committee and also has served as the Plaintiff’s/Policyholder’s Vice-Chair on the Title Insurance Litigation Committee.
While companies generally prefer to avoid litigation -- and Hall agrees with that sentiment -- he knows there comes a time in the life of most companies when the only real choice is to pursue claims. Hall has the necessary experience to help his clients critically evaluate the litigation option as the claimant.
Listed in The Best Lawyers in America® Commercial Litigation, 2015-2023 Litigation – Real Estate, 2021-2023 Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law, 2023 Employment Law – Management, 2023 Litigation – Banking and Finance, 2023 Litigation – Construction, 2023 Litigation – Labor and Employment, 2023 Listed in Mid-South Super Lawyers, 2022 "Rising Stars," Business Litigation, 2016-2019 Listed in Alabama Super Lawyers, "Rising Stars," Business Litigation, 2014-2015 Listed in Benchmark Litigation, "Future Star," 2009 Martindale-Hubbell® AV Preeminent Rated Wiregrass, Inc. v. Northern Insurance Company of New York, Case Number 1:16-cv-00201, United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama Obtained settlement of workers’ compensation insurance claim as part of a dispute where the insurer purported to cancel the policy after receiving notice of the claim. Marion Bank & Trust v. Marion Insurance Agency, et al., Case Number 53-cv-2014-900097, Circuit Court of Perry County, Ala. Represented company pursuing claims against insurance agents who allegedly failed to inform the insured about material concerns with its insurer both before and after the customer purchased the insurance policies at issue. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Company, Case Number 5:12-cv-02289, United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Obtained settlement of title insurance claim as part of a dispute with the title insurer regarding the date of loss and amount payable for the claim. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Backus, et al., CV-2008-900843, Circuit Court of Shelby County, Ala. Obtained judgment in insured client’s favor following trial for damages resulting from negligent construction of the client’s dental office. Georgia Commercial Stores, Inc. v. Coosa Pines Health Club, et al., CV-08-903128, Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Ala. Represented the owner of two commercial properties pursuing the collection of damages from its tenant resulting from violation of the terms of the applicable lease agreement. Also represented the owner in prosecution of related claims in a separate lawsuit against a title insurer and obtained summary judgment in client’s favor for full value of the title policy and legal fees, and with leave to prove alleged bad faith damages. South Highland Limited Partnership v. Southern Family Markets of Clanton, LLC, CV-07-902373, Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Ala. Obtained summary judgment in the tenant’s favor and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that judgment as part of South Highland Limited Partnership v. Southern Family Markets (Case No. 2090614). Summary judgment was entered in client’s favor based on the fact the tenant did not exercise in writing its option to extend the lease, and despite the landlord’s position that negotiations regarding a possible extension were the same thing as an actual extension. In the appeals court opinion, the court pointed out the favorable testimony obtained from the landlord’s representative that the discussions were nothing more than open negotiations. Raymond Freeman, et al. v. Bibb County, Ala., et al., CV-05-000174, Circuit Court of Bibb County, Ala. Obtained a favorable settlement for landowners resulting from claims asserted against private landowners and the county in which the property was located seeking damages for the taking of property and inverse condemnation. Mudd v. City of Birmingham v. Elyton Investment, Inc., CV-08-767, Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Ala. Obtained a verdict in client’s favor in which the court affirmed a city council’s prior decision to rezone client’s property to allow for development. Obtained a dismissal of all claims asserted by plaintiffs seeking to enforce restrictive covenants because those plaintiffs lacked standing. Obtained numerous favorable evidentiary rulings excluding from evidence any of the motives of the city council enacting the rezoning ordinance and any prior decisions by the city council to rezone the subject property. Representation of various companies against product-related claims Represented pharmaceutical companies, tire manufacturers, spray paint manufacturers and construction component manufacturers against various product-related claims, including defective design, defective manufacturing and defective warnings. As for pharmaceutical manufacturers, represented Bayer Corporation against numerous claims related to an ingredient of an over-the-counter cough and cold remedy. As for construction component manufacturers, represented a major manufacturer of Exterior Insulation Finishing Systems against numerous claims and obtained a voluntarily dismissal as part of Steve Shirley, Inc. v. Dryvit Systems, Inc. (CV-07-900227, Circuit Court of Shelby County, Ala.) after filing a motion for summary judgment against claims for indemnity made by installation contractor. Represented Chevron Mining, Inc. Represented a major mining company against numerous claims asserted by local landowners that client’s mining activities resulted in subsidence of their property and damages. During this representation, became familiar with the rules and regulations applicable to longwall mining activities and their impact on potential damages awardable to landowners. On this basis, obtained favorable settlements for client based on limited repair damages and other tangible evidence of potential damages. Branbarbo, Inc. v. Energen Corp., CV-03-001947, Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Ala. Successfully represented a major gas line utility operator and owner as first chair at trial in which plaintiff landowner sought access to its property over high-pressured gas lines. Obtained judgment in client’s favor defeating landowner’s attempt to construct road over high-pressured gas lines, and court ordered land-locked landowner to construct road providing access over less dangerous route.