Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in this case to the extent that it concluded Parker Towing was not entitled to indemnity for $25,000 it paid landowners in settlement of landowners' claims against it. The landowners sued Parker Towing and Triangle Aggregates, Inc. stemming from their claims of breach of contract pertaining to properties they originally leased to Parker, which were subsequently purchased by Triangle. Parker argued it was not liable for the landowners' claims following its sale of the properties to Triangle. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment with respect to its conclusion that Triangle was not required to indemnify Parker Towing for its attorney fees and other litigation expenses incurred to defend against the claims asserted against Parker Towing for breaches of the agreements with the landowners. The fees and expenses incurred by Parker Towing as a result of those breaches were covered by the indemnification agreement between Parker Towing and Triangle. View "Parker Towing Company, Inc. v. Triangle Aggregates, Inc. " on Justia Law

Gambro Renal Products, Inc. hired The Facility Group, Inc. ("TFG"), as the general contractor for the construction of a facility designed to produce kidney dialysis filters in Opelika. TFG contracted with the Hardy Corporation for specialized piping work on the project. Absolute Welding Services, Inc. ("AWS"), is a subsidiary of Rayco Industrial, Inc., a subsubcontractor hired by Hardy. Although the negotiations on the subcontract at issue in these appeals were between AWS and Hardy, the subcontract was executed by Rayco and Hardy. A dispute arose over whether the exclusion of "passivation" and the installation of piping in Rayco's offer was incorporated into its subcontract. Rayco filed a complaint against Hardy, Gambro and 15 fictitiously named parties, seeking an accounting, a declaratory judgment, a reformation of the contract, and perfection of a lien. Rayco asserted claims for damages for breach of contract, unjust enrichment/quantum meruit, and "work and labor done." Both parties unhappy with the eventual trial court order resolving the dispute, appealed the order. After careful consideration of the contracts and the trial court record, the Supreme Court reversed in part, and affirmed in part. The case was remanded with instructions for further proceedings. View "Hardy Corporation v. Rayco Industrial, Inc. " on Justia Law

Ligon Capital, LLC, and its subsidiary HTI Hydraulic Technologies, LLC, sued CNH America, LLC, asserting breach-of-contract, fraudulent-misrepresentation, and fraudulent suppression claims stemming from CNH's decision to stop using HTI as a supplier of hydraulic cylinders. Following a two week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Ligon and HTI on their fraudulent-suppression claims, awarding them $3.8 million in compensatory damages and $7.6 million in punitive damages. The trial court entered a judgment on that verdict, and CNH appealed. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "CNH America, LLC v. Ligon Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

Bruce L. Johnson, Michael L. King, and William Harrison sued Luke Edwards, the Apostolic Advancement Association, Heritage Real Investment, Inc., Alabama-Mississippi Farm, Inc., and several officers and board members of those organizations. Plaintiffs filed an application for the entry of a default judgment against Edwards pursuant to Rule 55, Ala. R. Civ. P., for his failure to plead or otherwise to defend the allegations in the complaint. The trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs' second application for a default judgment. The trial court thereafter entered a default judgment against the defendants and awarded damages. After review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that the defendants' notice of appeal was untimely. Therefore the Court was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. View "Edwards v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Terminix International Company, L.P., and Terminix International, Inc. appealed a trial court's order denying Terminix's motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award entered in favor of Walter Scott III and his wife, Paige. Terminix also appealed the trial court's order referring the Scotts' motion for sanctions to arbitration. In 2001, the Scotts entered into a termite-control-services contract with Terminix for a service known as the Termite Baiting System Protection Plan. Pursuant to the baiting plan, Terminix agreed, among other things, to install the baiting system, to monitor it, and to add or remove termite bait from the system as needed. In 2004 or 2005, Terminix lost the licensing rights to service or sell the termite-baiting-system plan. As a result, Terminix was no longer allowed to monitor or service the baiting system it had installed at the Scotts' house. The Scotts were not informed of this development until 2007, when they received a letter from Terminix which encouraged the Scotts to "update" their baiting system with another Terminix service or to convert their baiting system to the Terminix Liquid Defend System. The Scotts then entered into a new termite-service contract with Terminix for the new system. No live termite infestation was found in the Scotts' house since Terminix began servicing the house in 2001. However, in February 2010, a Terminix employee discovered extensive termite damage throughout the Scotts' house. Terminix agreed to repair the damage. Terminix stated it expended approximately $52,645 in repairs when a dispute arose with the Scotts over the scope of repairs to be made in a bathroom. Later that year, the Scotts petitioned the trial court, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("the FAA"), to arbitrate certain fraud claims arising from their dispute with Terminix. The Alabama Supreme Court agreed with Terminix to the extent that it argued the trial court erred in denying its postjudgment motion to vacate the ultimate arbitration award without first conducting a hearing on the motion as to the issue of arbitrator bias, and that was not harmless error. However, the Court found that the trial court did not err in denying the postjudgment motion to vacate the arbitration award without first conducting a hearing on the motion as to the issue whether the arbitrator had exceeded his authority under the termite-service contract. Furthermore, the trial court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate in any respect the Scotts' ALAA claim because that claim did not survive the trial court's failure to reserve jurisdiction to hear the claim. View "Terminix International Company, L.P. v. Scott " on Justia Law

Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (RJFS), and its employee, Bernard Michaud appealed a trial court order vacating an arbitration award in their favor and entering a judgment in favor of Kathryn Honea. Honea had multiple investment accounts with Raymond James and sued RJFS alleging violations of the Alabama Securities Act and sought damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, wantonness, and fraud. RJFS moved to compel arbitration, and the trial court granted the motion. An arbitration panel unanimously entered an award in favor of RJFS on Honea's claims. Honea filed a motion at circuit court to vacate the award. The trial court ultimately vacated the award, and RJFS appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment vacating the arbitration award, holding that a provision in the arbitration agreement Honea signed when she opened the accounts required the trial court to conduct a de novo review of the arbitration award, and remanded the case for it to conduct such a review. Both parties acknowledged on appeal that the award had not been entered as a judgment of the trial court. Because the award to RJFS was not entered as a judgment of the trial court as required by statute, the Supreme Court could reach no other conclusion but that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review the award on remand. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment purporting to vacate that award and to enter a judgment in favor of Honea was void. This appeal was dismissed. View "Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. v. Honea " on Justia Law

Target Media Partners Operating Company, LLC and Specialty Marketing Corporation d/b/a Truck Market News, have litigated a commercial contract dispute since 2007. Each party alleged breach-of-contract claims against the other. The litigation ended with a jury verdict in favor of Ed Leader, Target Media's vice president of trucking on the promissory-fraud claim against him; in favor of Specialty Marketing on its fraudulent misrepresentation claim, and in favor of Target Media on its breach of contract counterclaim. Target Media and Leader appealed the judgment entered in favor of Specialty Marketing on its claims against Target Media and Leader. After careful review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order that denied Target Media and Leader's postjudgment motion, but the case was remanded for re-review of the punitive damages award. View "Target Media Partners Operating Company, LLC v. Specialty Marketing Corporation" on Justia Law

Garfield W. Ivey, Jr. appealed circuit court judgment in favor of James C. King. In 2007, King sued Dollar & Eads, P.C., Rhonda Dollar, and Phillip Eads ("Dollar & Eads"), Peggy G. Northcutt a/k/a Peggy G. Fannin ("Northcutt"), who was employed by Dollar & Eads, P.C., and Al Northcutt, asserting various claims related to an alleged embezzlement of funds belonging to dissolved entities in which King and Ivey were members. King and Ivey entered into a settlement agreement with Dollar & Eads, which settled King's and Ivey's respective claims against Dollar & Eads for $627,684. King and Ivey agreed to divide the settlement amount between them based on their ownership interests in the various dissolved entities. A dispute over the split of the settlement proceeds was the subject of this appeal: Ivey claimed King was entitled to a certain amount based on Ivey's computation of King's ownership interest in each of the dissolved entities. But the parties' disagreement over how to split the settlement was the subject of a series of motions and circuit court orders in an attempt to resolve the dispute. The last order from the circuit court denying Ivey's motion to alter, amend or vacate an April 11, 2012 judgment was denied, and that was appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Court found no error or abuse of discretion in denying Ivey's motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. View "Ivey, Jr. v. King " on Justia Law

Precision Gear Company, Precision Gear LLC, and General Metal Heat Treating, Inc. were granted permission to appeal an interlocutory order denying their motion to dismiss the third-party claims against them filed by Continental Motors, Inc. The trial court certified a question to the Supreme Court of whether, in a suit for non-contractual indemnification arising from an accident and alleged damage that occurred out of state, Alabama's six year statute of limitation for implied contract actions controlled because the foreign jurisdiction's law considered its common law and statutory claims for indemnity as claims based upon contract implied in law or quasi-contract, or whether Alabama's two year statute of limitation for tort actions controlled. Upon review, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that Alabama's two-year statute of limitations applied in this case and that Continental Motors' claims against the gear manufacturers were time-barred. View "Precision Gear Co. v. Continental Motors, Inc. " on Justia Law

Plaintiff SafetyNet Youth Systems, LLC sued Defendants Guarantee Insurance Company, Patriot National Insurance Group, Randy Thomas, and Paul Harper in Dallas County Circuit Court. Defendants sought the writ of mandamus to direct the Dallas court to grant their motion for a transfer of venue to Lee County. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Dallas County was an inappropriate forum, and granted defendant's petition and issued the writ. View "Safetynet Youth Systems, LLC v. Guarantee Insurance Co." on Justia Law