Bella Investments, Inc. v. Multi Family Services, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/25/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2110120 Bella Investments, Inc. v. M u l t i Family S e r v i c e s , Inc. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-08-3794) THOMAS, Judge. Bella judgment court") Court Investments, Inc. ("Bella"), appeals entered i n favor by t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t of M u l t i Family Services, f r o m a summary Court ("the t r i a l I n c . ("MFS"), o n 2110120 Bella's part, claims against We affirm i n part, reverse in and remand w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s . Facts This this MFS. i s the second court. Inc., pertinent therein we Invs., parties below, terms have been I n c . v. M u l t i and p r o c e d u r a l quote as d e f i n e d these History ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011). background which time See B e l l a 80 S o . 3 d 921 Bella, and Procedural a n d we i n this We Family before Servs., set forth the h i s t o r y of this case i n use t h e terms defined opinion.: " I n June 2003, B e l l a e n t e r e d into a contract w i t h MFS f o r MFS t o s e r v e a s t h e g e n e r a l contractor f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a h o t e l i n G a r d e n d a l e . The c o n t r a c t between t h e p a r t i e s i n c l u d e d a w a r r a n t y p r o v i s i o n , w a r r a n t i n g MFS's w o r k f o r one y e a r f r o m t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e c e r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y . MFS, in turn, contracted with various other entities, i n c l u d i n g D a v i d & Company A r c h i t e c t s , I n c . ( ' D a v i d & Company'), t o s e r v e as t h e a r c h i t e c t s f o r t h e p r o j e c t a n d Danny H a w k i n s d/b/a Danny H a w k i n s F l o o r C o v e r i n g ('Hawkins') t o s e r v e as a s u b c o n t r a c t o r t o i n s t a l l t i l e f l o o r i n g i n the hotel. "The building inspector f o r the City of Gardendale inspected t h e h o t e l o n A p r i l 5, 2 0 0 6 , and, that same day, i s s u e d a certificate of occupancy f o r the h o t e l . A t the time that the c e r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y was i s s u e d , s e v e r a l i s s u e s , including cracking i n some o f t h e f l o o r tiles, r e m a i n e d o u t s t a n d i n g a n d h a d been l i s t e d on a p u n c h l i s t o f i t e m s f o r MFS t o r e m e d y . B e l l a a l s o made requests under the warranty provision of the c o n t r a c t f o r MFS t o r e p a i r c r a c k e d floor tiles i n the hotel. According to Bella, problems with 2 2110120 cracking floor tiles remedy t h e i s s u e . continued a n d MFS failed to "On A u g u s t 4, 2 0 0 8 , B e l l a s u e d MFS, C. B o y d Edgerton, i n his individual capacity, David & Company, a n d v a r i o u s f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t s in the Marshall C i r c u i t Court. In i t s complaint, Bella asserted claims of negligence/wantonness, n e g l i g e n t h i r i n g and s u p e r v i s i o n , s u p p r e s s i o n , and b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t . B e l l a a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t MFS's s u b c o n t r a c t o r s were l i a b l e t o B e l l a because B e l l a was a third-party beneficiary to the contracts b e t w e e n MFS a n d t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r s . B e l l a t h e n moved the M a r s h a l l C i r c u i t Court t o t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n t o t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t ; MFS a n d E d g e r t o n j o i n e d B e l l a ' s m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n . On S e p t e m b e r , 30, 2 0 0 8 , t h e M a r s h a l l C i r c u i t C o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e action to the Jefferson C i r c u i t Court "On November 3, 2008, Bella amended i t s c o m p l a i n t , r e a s s e r t i n g i t s claims and s u b s t i t u t i n g Layne S t r u c t u r a l , Gonzales S t r e n g t h & Associates, I n c . , T u s c o F e n c e , I n c . , a n d W h i t e n P o o l s f o r some o f t h e f i c t i t i o u s l y n a m e d d e f e n d a n t s . MFS a n s w e r e d Bella's complaint, denying a l l i t s material allegations and asserting certain affirmative d e f e n s e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . MFS also asserted a counterclaim against B e l l a , a l l e g i n g t h a t B e l l a h a d b r e a c h e d i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h MFS b y f a i l i n g t o p a y MFS t h e f u l l a m o u n t o w e d u n d e r t h e contract. I n a d d i t i o n , MFS a s s e r t e d a third-party c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t S u r e s h Parmar and B h a r t i Parmar, in t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l capacities, alleging that the P a r m a r s h a d e x e c u t e d a n o t e i n f a v o r o f MFS, w h i c h t h e y h a d n o t p a i d . On May 5, 2 0 1 0 , B e l l a f i l e d a s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t , r e a s s e r t i n g i t s c l a i m s a n d s u b s t i t u t i n g H a w k i n s f o r one o f t h e f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t s . "On J u n e 1 4 , 2 0 1 0 , MFS m o v e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on a l l B e l l a ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t i t . MFS asserted three bases i n support of i t s 3 2110120 s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n : (1) t h a t a l l B e l l a ' s c l a i m s were barred by the applicable statute of l i m i t a t i o n s , as p r o v i d e d i n § 6-5-221, A l a . Code 1975; (2) t h a t B e l l a d i d n o t p r o v i d e MFS w i t h n o t i c e of i t s claims, i n contravention of the contract between the p a r t i e s ; and (3) t h a t t h e r e was no genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t concerning Bella's suppression c l a i m . MFS a l s o s u b m i t t e d e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n . B e l l a f i l e d a brief i n o p p o s i t i o n t o MFS's summary-judgment motion and submitted evidence i n support of i t s brief i n opposition. "On S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f MFS o n a l l B e l l a ' s claims against i t . In i t s order, the t r i a l court s t a t e d t h a t i t h a d d e t e r m i n e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t B e l l a ' s c l a i m s were b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . The s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t o r d e r a l s o s t a t e d that ' [ t ] h i s order s h a l l not a f f e c t [Bella's] claims against Defendants David & Company ... and [Hawkins],' the only other defendants still r e m a i n i n g i n t h e a c t i o n . ... B e l l a f i l e d a p u r p o r t e d postjudgment motion requesting that the t r i a l court a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e i t s s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t o r d e r , which the t r i a l court denied. Bella subsequently a p p e a l e d t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t . Our supreme court t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal t o t h i s court, pursuant t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . " Bella, 80 S o . 3 d a t 9 2 2 - 2 4 In taken Bella, we (footnotes dismissed Bella's omitted). appeal having from a n o n f i n a l judgment because s e v e r a l claims o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s as w e l l as MFS's c o u n t e r c l a i m claims as were still pending i n the t r i a l 4 court been against and t h i r d - p a r t y and the trial 2110120 c o u r t had Rule failed 54(b), After Bella, on to c e r t i f y A l a . R. this Civ. court O c t o b e r 13, P. Parmer Additionally, to a MFS and the 13, certificate of judgment Parmar without Bella court, That dismissing Bella's October appeal same MFS's claims 28, was pursuant day filed noting trial counterclaim against 2011, the a that Bella David & filed t r a n s f e r r e d by i t stipulated & Company entered third-party Company supreme § an and order claims and Hawkins. and court against stipulation On a t i m e l y n o t i c e of the t o A l a . Code 1975, court and in prejudice. the d i s m i s s a l of a l l i t s claims a g a i n s t David Hawkins. to a motion to dismiss i t s i t s t h i r d - p a r t y claims 2011, trial f i n a l pursuant 924. filed Bharti October of d i s m i s s a l w i t h Id. at 2011, and on j u d g m e n t as issued counterclaim against Bella Suresh the appeal; to this i t s court, 12-2-7(6). Issues On appeal, Bella argues that the trial court erred e n t e r i n g a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f MFS because, the i n the trial court failed favorable to burden establishing of Bella, to view the the evidence nonmovant; that there 5 MFS was failed no to genuine in i t says: light most meet i t s issue of 2110120 material fact regarding B e l l a ' s claims associated with unrelated to the cracked tile flooring; MFS should have estopped from a s s e r t i n g the a f f i r m a t i v e defense of the of l i m i t a t i o n s as flooring; the and Bella's claims f l o o r i n g had was to B e l l a ' s claim regarding trial regarding a c c r u e d on court erred in the date the certificate cracked cracked of Review "'The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e t o a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s t h e same a s t h e s t a n d a r d f o r g r a n t i n g t h e m o t i o n . . . . ' M c C l e n d o n v . M o u n t a i n Top Indoor F l e a M a r k e t , I n c . , 601 So. 2 d 957, 958 (Ala. 1992). "'A summary j u d g m e n t i s p r o p e r when t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t and the moving p a r t y is entitled to a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , Ala. R. C i v . P. The b u r d e n i s on t h e m o v i n g p a r t y t o make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r of law. In d e t e r m i n i n g whether the movant has c a r r i e d t h a t b u r d e n , t h e court i s t o v i e w the e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmoving p a r t y and to draw a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s i n f a v o r of t h a t p a r t y . To d e f e a t a p r o p e r l y s u p p o r t e d summary judgment motion, the nonmoving p a r t y must p r e s e n t " s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e " c r e a t i n g a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t - ¬ " e v i d e n c e of s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t fair-minded persons i n the exercise of 6 tile that tile occupancy issued. Standard of been statute determining d e f e c t s u n r e l a t e d to the the defects 2110120 i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r the e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12; West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 54 7 So. 2 d 8 7 0 , 871 (Ala. 1989).' " C a p i t a l A l l i a n c e I n s . Co. v . T h o r o u g h - C l e a n , 639 So. 2 d 1 3 4 9 , 1350 (Ala. 1994)." Singleton (Ala. v. State Farm F i r e & Cas. Co., 928 So. Inc., 2d 280, 283 record is 2005). Discussion A primary reviewed Bella's Code i s s u e on i n the claims 1975, §§ against MFS appeal, § appeal i s w h e t h e r , when t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e are time-barred. 6-5-220 t h r o u g h in this 6-5-221(a) action. The to B e l l a , the p a r t i e s agree nonmovant, that 6-5-225, g o v e r n B e l l a ' s At the times pertinent claims to provided: "(a) A l l c i v i l a c t i o n s i n t o r t , c o n t r a c t , or otherwise against any architect or engineer performing or f u r n i s h i n g the design, planning, s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , testing, supervision, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , o r o b s e r v a t i o n o f any c o n s t r u c t i o n of any improvement on or to real property, or a g a i n s t b u i l d e r s who c o n s t r u c t e d , or performed or m a n a g e d t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f , an i m p r o v e m e n t on o r t o r e a l p r o p e r t y d e s i g n e d by and c o n s t r u c t e d u n d e r t h e s u p e r v i s i o n , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , or o b s e r v a t i o n of an architect or engineer, or designed by and constructed in accordance with the plans and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s p r e p a r e d by an a r c h i t e c t o r e n g i n e e r , f o r t h e r e c o v e r y o f damages f o r : 7 Ala. this 2110120 " ( i ) Any d e f e c t o r d e f i c i e n c y i n t h e d e s i g n , planning, specifications, testing, supervision, administration, or observation of the construction of any such improvement, o r any d e f e c t o r d e f i c i e n c y i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f any such improvement; o r " ( i i ) Damage t o r e a l o r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y any such d e f e c t o r d e f i c i e n c y ; o r caused " ( i i i ) Injury t o or wrongful death of a caused by any such d e f e c t o r d e f i c i e n c y ; person by " s h a l l be commenced w i t h i n two y e a r s n e x t a f t e r a c a u s e of action accrues or arises, and not thereafter. N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e f o r e g o i n g , no r e l i e f c a n be g r a n t e d on any cause o f a c t i o n which a c c r u e s o r would have a c c r u e d more t h a n t h i r t e e n y e a r s a f t e r t h e s u b s t a n t i a l c o m p l e t i o n o f c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e i m p r o v e m e n t on o r t o the r e a l p r o p e r t y , and any r i g h t o f a c t i o n w h i c h a c c r u e s o r w o u l d have a c c r u e d more t h a n t h i r t e e n y e a r s t h e r e a f t e r i s b a r r e d , e x c e p t where p r i o r t o t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f such thirteen-year period, the a r c h i t e c t , engineer, or builder had actual knowledge t h a t such defect or deficiency e x i s t s and f a i l e d t o d i s c l o s e such d e f e c t o r d e f i c i e n c y t o t h e p e r s o n w i t h whom t h e a r c h i t e c t , e n g i n e e r or b u i l d e r contracted t o perform such s e r v i c e . " 1 (Emphasis added.) "accrues Pursuant t o § 6-5-220(e), a cause o f a c t i o n or arises" "when p r o p e r t y i s d a m a g e d a s a p r o x i m a t e r e s u l t o f a defect or deficiency i n design, planning, t e s t i n g , supervision, administration, or observation of c o n s t r u c t i o n o f an i m p r o v e m e n t b y an a r c h i t e c t o r e n g i n e e r o r i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f an i m p r o v e m e n t on or to real estate, constructed, performed, or E f f e c t i v e S e p t e m b e r 1, 2 0 1 1 , § 6 - 5 - 2 2 1 ( a ) was a m e n d e d t o s h o r t e n t h e 1 3 - y e a r p e r i o d t o a 7 - y e a r p e r i o d . S e e A c t No. 2011-519. A l a . A c t s 2011. 1 8 2110120 managed b y a b u i l d e r ; o r w h e r e t h e damage o r i n j u r y either is latent or by its nature is not d i s c o v e r a b l e i n the e x e r c i s e of reasonable d i l i g e n c e at the time of i t s occurrence, the c l a i m f o r r e l i e f s h a l l be deemed t o a r i s e o r a c c r u e a t t h e t i m e t h e damage o r i n j u r y i s o r i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f reasonable diligence should have been first discovered, w h i c h e v e r i s e a r l i e r . The c a u s e o f a c t i o n a c c r u e s o r a r i s e s w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e f u l l amount o f damages i s a p p a r e n t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e f i r s t i n j u r y o r damage, a n d c a n n o t be e x t e n d e d a s a c o n t i n u o u s w r o n g . " Thus, i n r e v i e w i n g o f MFS on claim to a l l Bella's claims, under 221(a), § the t r i a l c o u r t ' s the a n d we statute of we summary j u d g m e n t i n must r e v i e w limitations each provided favor individual in must d e t e r m i n e when e a c h c l a i m a c c r u e d § 6-5- pursuant 6-5-220(e). As MFS: noted above, negligent hiring, contract; Bella asserted installation and supervision, and training; wantonness; and claims beneficiary. 2 In i t s complaint numerous construction; suppression; for relief and claims as against negligent breach of a third-party amended c o m p l a i n t s , Bella On appeal, B e l l a f a i l s to argue t h a t the t r i a l court erred in entering a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on i t s wantonness, n e g l i g e n t - h i r i n g , - s u p e r v i s i o n , and - t r a i n i n g , and t h i r d - p a r t y beneficiary claims. A c c o r d i n g l y , we w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r t h o s e c l a i m s on a p p e a l , a n d t h e s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f MFS on those claims i s affirmed. See B o s h e l l v . K e i t h , 418 So. 2d 89, 92 ( A l a . 1982) ("When a n a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o a r g u e an i s s u e in i t s b r i e f , that issue i s waived."). 2 9 2110120 a l l e g e d t h a t MFS h a d b e e n n e g l i g e n t and asserted the following negligent-construction buckling causing throughout doors i n constructing defects to bind; widespread improper We w i l l in first basis of Regarding cracking installation cement s i d i n g ; and i m p r o p e r g r a d i n g Claim the tile of the of the project the Cracked T i l e of fiber site." Flooring address whether the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s § 6-5-221(a) a p p l i e d so as t o b a r B e l l a ' s n e g l i g e n c e regarding the building." that "widespread cracking of tile claim regarding the cracked claim throughout I n i t s m o t i o n f o r a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t , MFS Bella's the count of i t s l a w s u i t : " f l o o r s and w a l l s the b u i l d i n g ; Negligence as the hotel tile the asserted f l o o r i n g was time-barred b e c a u s e i t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t B e l l a was a w a r e o f the tile to the cracked filed suit flooring i n April cause o f a c t i o n Bella's cracked had accrued. 2006. principals tile In support the deposition stating that f l o o r i n g a t the time Therefore, negligence failed u n t i l A u g u s t 4, 2 0 0 8 , m o r e t h a n t w o y e a r s j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , MFS a t t a c h e d of 2006 b u t B e l l a h a d claim because regarding the cracked o f i t s summaryt e s t i m o n y o f one was the hotel the record 10 she aware opened indicates tile after that of the in April Bella's f l o o r i n g accrued 2110120 in April 2006 and t h a t years of the date trial court claim. its the claim accrued, d i dnot e r r i n entering next argues that we suit within conclude claims assert negligent Bella asserts, in April regarding 2006 b e c a u s e , repairs to the t i l e the claims the noticed. We reject this unsupported by the record In trial i t s order accrued on t h e d a t e court flooring claims, such that accrued on t h e d a t e deficiencies argument, a Bella's gave cause in the the t r i a l rise of postjudgment tile court to action of the repairs undisputedly i t says, that the damage was and f i n d r e j e c t e d B e l l a ' s argument t h a t tile Bella contention cracked i t t o be and a p p l i c a b l e law. denying cracked when the f l o o r i n g , and, r e p a i r s w e r e made a n d n o t t h e d a t e t h a t t h e i n i t i a l first that two a summary j u d g m e n t on t h i s i t s claim f l o o r i n g d i d not accrue thus, to f i l e S e e §§ 6-5-220 a n d 6 - 5 - 2 2 1 ( a ) . Bella tile Bella failed became the the repairs to the separate and distinct f o r negligent instead repair of i n A p r i l aware flooring. motion, of In the 2006, initial rejecting stated: "In i t s motion, B e l l a argues that i t s claims f o r n e g l i g e n t r e p a i r a r e n o t p r e c l u d e d by t h e s t a t u t e of limitations. However, Bella's negligent repair c l a i m s a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e damage ... o b s e r v e d 11 this 2110120 i n A p r i l 2006. T h e r e f o r e , b e c a u s e t h e C o m p l a i n t was not f i l e d u n t i l A u g u s t 2008, a l l of B e l l a ' s c l a i m s a r e b a r r e d by t h e two y e a r s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . " We agree As noted motion tile w i t h the trial above, evidence in April 220(e), " [ t ] h e cause not full first MFS attached 2006 of to regarding a MFS made a as a cracked tile to 1038 Bella rebut evidence. See ( A l a . 1992). Lee v. Bella its attempts action arise in April form of to repair the regarding 2006. Hawkins's arises at the time as a showing of law the continuous that Bella's claim of facie shifted the showing by Gadsden, 592 So. 2d evidence, had been n e g l i g e n t i n flooring or t h a t i t s defects Instead, B e l l a presented evidence 12 was because tile answer i t claim tile-flooring verified the Bella's t h a t MFS cracked of or on prima City 6-5- whether f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t any alone s u b s t a n t i a l evidence, of or to time-barred, which MFS's let cause § be e x t e n d e d flooring burden 1036, cracked pursuant accrues matter f l o o r i n g was summary-judgment aware o f the sufficient regarding the t i l e substantial i t s that, cannot judgment the to to amount o f damages i s a p p a r e n t Thus, entitled and action i n j u r y o r damage, and wrong." reasoning. i n d i c a t i n g t h a t B e l l a was flooring the court's indicating did not i n the that the 2110120 underlying cracking reason f o r the in the tile continuing flooring improper concrete foundation been April laid before indicating that issues i t had review of favor noticed its claims other trial Bella's claim regarding construction of based the on our judgment cracked in tile cracked set tile claims that, regarding determining and numerous other i t argues that its alleged that the negligent- in as issued which the motion Bella did a not the the 6-5-221, i t submitted i t says, by § of because, barred in out applying flooring Specifically, were even statute e x h i b i t s to performed, evidence t o MFS's m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , as w e l l limitations MFS in contention limitations filed. claims that Bella's the erred had affirmed. statute regarding the tile-flooring summary court the the court's were t i m e l y opposition remedy trial negligent-construction defects to attached the t o be applicable failed also was flooring Thus, address the Bella tile 2006. on we upon w h i c h the widespread hotel April MFS Next, the in record, i s due throughout 2006; had the of flooring MFS problems with two-year evidence f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , one-year expire 13 warranty until April on establish the 2007 work -- a i t year 2110120 after the A p r i l Thus, Bella 5, 2006, c e r t i f i c a t e argues, o f o c c u p a n c y was i t s negligent-construction issued. claims t i m e l y f i l e d because i t i n i t i a t e d the l a w s u i t w i t h i n two of However, were the cite e x p i r a t i o n of any relevant relies only for summary a requires that "citations "'[A]n not to general P.'" not cases, Lee, 449 833 applicable meet the decline to 2d of an to to v. general the this to instead, i t Ala. motions Civ. brief contain propositions of Rule 28, Ala. B a n k A m e r i c a Hous. 2002)). Claims Regarding on the specifically buckling and defects its other claims causing doors than R. App. 946 Servs. So. v. we appeal. Than the Flooring the regarding to bind, 14 the Accordingly, D e f i c i e n c i e s Other Tile law by presented Next, B e l l a argues that i t s n e g l i g e n t - c o n s t r u c t i o n based of Barber I n s u l a t i o n , Inc., (Ala. P., other a u t h o r i t i e s . " issues a r g u m e n t on Cracked fails regarding appellant's (quoting 621 law [and] Bella issue; 28(a)(10), requirements 609, consider Negligence in citations ( A l a . 2006) So. this statutes, C i n c i n n a t i I n s . Cos. 441, to Rule arguments ... as propositions judgment. specifically do warranty. authority appellant's appeal 2d on the years cracked the tile floors improper claims flooring, and walls installation of 2110120 the fiber site, cement s i d i n g , and i m p r o p e r g r a d i n g are not barred by the statute asserting this argument, B e l l a establish that those negligence claim what i f any, date, those defects until July relies So. are those latent 2008. contends accrued tile accrued defects I n an a t t e m p t that MFS that flooring because, court we erred installation filed on discover Construction address B e l l a ' s s p e c i f i c i n entering of the f i b e r limitations latent or i t says, i t d i d not Bella Co., 882 argument t h a t the a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r MFS o n i t s n e g l i g e n t - c o n s t r u c t i o n c l a i m r e g a r d i n g of to as i t s to bolster i t sclaim, v. Land D e v e l o p e r s In failed o n t h e same d a t e the cracked claims limitations. ( A l a . 2003). Initially, trial regarding on D i c k i n s o n 2 d 291 claims of of the project defects because, the improper cement s i d i n g b a s e d on t h e s t a t u t e i t contends, t h a t were d i s c o v e r e d i t s complaint. of the only siding contained months b e f o r e Bella Thus, i t a r g u e s , i t s c l a i m r e g a r d i n g the s i d i n g was t i m e l y f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o §§ 6 - 5 - 2 2 1 ( a ) a n d 6 - 5 - 2 2 0 . The t r i a l court e x p l i c i t l y r e j e c t e d t h e argument t h a t t h e a l l e g e d d e f i c i e n c i e s i n t h e s i d i n g were l a t e n t d e f e c t s Bella's claims were a n a l o g o u s t o those 15 i n Dickinson. or that Ini t s 2110120 order denying B e l l a ' s postjudgment motion, the trial court stated: " B e l l a argues t h a t the a l l e g e d d e f e c t s i n the s i d i n g of the [hotel] are analogous to those d e f e c t s alleged i n Dickinson. In Dickinson, the Alabama Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t a p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s for l a t e n t d e f e c t s r e l a t e d t o u n d e r g r o u n d r o t t e n wood and s o i l f i l l p r o b l e m s p r e s e n t e d a j u r y q u e s t i o n as to whether t h e r e d i s c o v e r y f e l l o u t s i d e the s t a t u t e of limitations. Dickinson at 299-300. A latent defect i s defined as '[a] hidden or concealed defect,' ' [ o ] n e w h i c h c o u l d n o t be d i s c o v e r e d by reasonable and customary i n s p e c t i o n . ' C o l l i e r v. D u p r e l , 480 So. 2 d 1 1 9 6 , 1199 ( A l a , 1985) (citing Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979)). In the matter p r e s e n t l y before t h i s Court, the d e f e c t i v e s i d i n g i s not a hidden or concealed d e f e c t . I t i s v i s i b l e t o a n y o n e who may w a l k by t h e b u i l d i n g . A d d i t i o n a l l y , B e l l a h a s p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e w h i c h shows t h a t t h e d e f e c t c o u l d n o t have b e e n d i s c o v e r e d by a r e a s o n a b l e and c u s t o m a r y i n s p e c t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , the present case i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from D i c k i n s o n and d o e s n o t c a r v e o u t an e x c e p t i o n t o A l a b a m a Code § 6-5-221." H o w e v e r , we regarding were not As cannot agree w i t h the Bella's claim that concealed noted the trial above, this l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o the imperfections court we reviews i n the siding a nonmovant, B e l l a . So. In t h i s i n the record, taken 16 trial court's must v i e w the e v i d e n c e i n A l a b a m a C e n t . C r e d i t U n i o n , 964 the determination defects. s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t de n o v o , a n d case, court's 2d 1225, See 1228 Robinson the v. (Ala. 2007). l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to 2110120 Bella, fact indicates there i s a genuine as t o w h e t h e r t h e a l l e g e d latent defects. indicating had that siding Specifically, that E-services, noticed several in 2008. indicating that defects issue with Bella of material the siding presented Inc., had evaluated evidence t h e h o t e l and deficiencies i n the i n s t a l l a t i o n In addition, later testing Bella on presented August 5, were 2010, of the evidence revealed f u r t h e r damage a f t e r t h e s i d i n g a n d t h e m o i s t u r e b a r r i e r w e r e removed. Further, defective-siding because the deficiencies occupancy trial we issues were building Next, claims because, date we summary i n April that visible did consider not claims Bella's that construction were 17 passerby indicate o f MFS argument We alleged any reverse on the of the Bella's improper siding. the record accrued. to a T h u s , we regarding cement the the c e r t i f i c a t e i n favor claim negligent i t contends, 2006. judgment of the fiber alleging those clearly inspector negligent-construction installation conclude i n t h e s i d i n g w h e n he i s s u e d f o r the hotel court's cannot does agree. i t s remaining timely not indicate on filed what 2110120 It i s well established that judgment must make a genuine issue as to entitled to the burden prima any a j u d g m e n t as to the a party facie showing material a matter nonmovant to moving f o r a "that fact of and law" present summary there i n order no [it] that is is to substantial shift evidence r e b u t t i n g i t s p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. P.; see Lee, 592 So. summary-judgment 2d motion, negligent-construction hotel was issued 1038. MFS claims attached for i t s summary-judgment In arose accrued in depositions that April flooring in tile flooring, 2006. Our for a when evidentiary review the of support the record that c l a i m s , except the which was addressed the portions claim above, the t o the summary-judgment m o t i o n s t a t e only 2006. Specifically, were summary aware Moreover, e l e c t r o n i c - m a i l messages a t t a c h e d motion Bella's of principals April its f a i l e d to e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e case attached Bella's 2006, in occupancy; a d d i t i o n a l l y , of B e l l a ' s n e g l i g e n t - c o n s t r u c t i o n cracked a l l in April of motion. case, that numerous e x h i b i t s t o p r o v i d e i n d i c a t e s t h a t MFS regarding this argued its certificate MFS any at Civ. judgment 18 of the the cracked "punch tile lists" and to B e l l a ' s opposition to tend to indicate that the Bella 2110120 became aware o f t h e o t h e r within we alleged defects two y e a r s o f when B e l l a must conclude that the summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r failed t o make a p r i m a time-barred a matter and, thus, Bella's other the that o f MFS facie that court action. erred on t h o s e showing i t was after the reviewing trial court negligent-construction than statute trial this the cracked of l i m i t a t i o n s favorable issue tile cement floors siding, accrued. because claims a MFS were t o a judgment as the record erred fact flooring, and w a l l s , were grading Therefore, the t r i a l court's i s reversed, trial court those and claims. f o r proceedings 19 of by there the the review i s a of light genuine regarding the of the fiber project site summary j u d g m e n t as t o the cause consistent that viewed i n the improper i n s t a l l a t i o n improper claims Our we defects, barred the claims and those determining i n § 6-5-221. t o when case, for alleged establishes that as i n this in claims provided to Bella, of material buckling i n entering those entitled evidence i n d i c a t e s that the evidence, most Therefore, claims that 2006 a n d of law. Accordingly, conclude filed after April i s remanded with this to the opinion on 2110120 Breach-of-Contract Bella entering appears t o argue that Claim the t r i a l a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r contract claim. Essentially, attempting to argue that sufficient to establish failed prima entitled t o a judgment contract claim because, i t says, indicating that Bella failed to facie as a m a t t e r that case comply with the for Construction" were a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e A I A form contract i n this and without i t was o f l a w on t h e b r e a c h - o f - t h e "AIA G e n e r a l C o n d i t i o n s action. i s evidence that MFS d i d n o t p r o d u c e to in Bella present precedent or that at issue erred o f MFS o n i t s b r e a c h - o f - i t appears MFS a court This evidence condition of the Contract construction argument i s m i s g u i d e d merit. In i t s motion f o r a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t , MFS argued that i t was e n t i t l e d t o j u d g m e n t a s a m a t t e r o f l a w o n B e l l a ' s b r e a c h of-contract parties claim required because that the AIA form Bella construction to the architect pursuant the condition failed to contract, precedent to refer the refer claims for a decision architect's to initiating i t sclaims contract regarding the and because, decision was litigation to the architect. 20 between t h e a and B e l l a had Further, MFS 2110120 attached parties t h e A I A form contract and t h e "AIA General Construction" as exhibits entered Conditions to into between t h e of the Contract f o r i t s motion for a summary for a summary judgment. In judgment, i t s order granting thet r i a l court MFS's motion stated: "Although the statute of l i m i t a t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n A l a . Code § 6-5-221 i s a p p l i c a b l e t o ' a l l c i v i l actions i n tort, contract or otherwise,' the Court will specifically address Plaintiff's breach of contract claims. " P l a i n t i f f a n d MFS e n t e r e d i n t o a n c o n t r a c t f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n o n J u n e 3, 2 0 0 5 . ( S e e D e f ' s M o t . Summ. J E x . A.) T h e c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n P l a i n t i f f a n d MFS w a s a standard A I AAl01-1997 form c o n t r a c t which adopted t h e A I A Document A201-1997, G e n e r a l C o n d i t i o n s o f t h e C o n t r a c t f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n . ( S e e D e f ' s M o t . Summ. J E x . A.) T h e G e n e r a l C o n d i t i o n s s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e that submission of a Claim t o the a r c h i t e c t i s a condition precedent to litigation. The G e n e r a l Conditions define a 'claim' as a 'dispute ... b e t w e e n t h e Owner a n d C o n t r a c t o r a r i s i n g o u t o f o r relating t o theContract.' ( D e f . ' s M o t . Summ. J E x . G § 4.3.1.) S e c t i o n 4.3.1 c o n t i n u e s , ' c l a i m s m u s t b e i n i t i a t e d by w r i t t e n notice.' I d . "Section 4.4 o f t h e G e n e r a l Conditions states: " ' C l a i m s ... s h a l l b e r e f e r r e d i n i t i a l l y t o the A r c h i t e c t f o r d e c i s i o n . An initial d e c i s i o n b y t h e A r c h i t e c t s h a l l be r e q u i r e d as a condition precedent t o mediation, arbitration or litigation of a l l Claims between t h e C o n t r a c t o r a n d Owner a r i s i n g 21 2110120 prior t o t h e date final payment i s due I " ( D e f ' s M o t . Summ. J E x . G §4.4.1.) " F i n a l p a y m e n t was due f o r t h e [ h o t e l ] p r o j e c t i n D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 7 . ( D e f ' s M o t . Summ, J E x . E a t 5 5 ) . Plaintiff, however, has failed to produce substantial evidence that, p r i o r t o f i n a l payment being due, i t submitted a w r i t t e n c l a i m t o t h e a r c h i t e c t i n accordance with t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e General Conditions. This Court finds that P l a i n t i f f ' s f a i l u r e t o meet t h i s c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t entitles MFS t o s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n P l a i n t i f f ' s breach of contract claims." (Emphasis added.) We a g r e e w i t h of MFS o n B e l l a ' s prima facie the t r i a l evidence shifting evidence However, B e l l a f a i l e d issue AIA construction instead, i t was e n t i t l e d t o present of material See a claim o f t h egeneral parties; presented fact L e e , 592 So. to a claim, substantial regarding the 2d a t 1038. t o present any evidence i n d i c a t i n g that provisions form to Bella claim. filed MFS o f l a w on t h e b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t o f a genuine had e i t h e r claim. indicating that t h e burden breach-of-contract it summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r breach-of-contract judgment as a matter thus court's with the architect or that the conditions contract were i n a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e entered i tmerely argued before 22 into between t h e the t r i a l court, and 2110120 a r g u e s on a p p e a l , t h a t MFS s h o u l d have p r o v i d e d that evidence. B e l l a ' s a r g u m e n t i s i n h e r e n t l y f l a w e d b e c a u s e i t was t h e p a r t y responsible existed. f o r producing Therefore, such we affirm evidence, the i f such trial evidence court's summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f MFS o n B e l l a ' s b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t Suppression Next, erred we address i n entering suppression that subflooring, Claim argument a summary judgment because, claim indicating Bella's i t says, MFS which was aware caused the claim. that the t r i a l i n favor o f MFS i t submitted of the on i t s evidence improper widespread court concrete cracking of the tiles. "The elements suppression of a cause a r e : (1) a d u t y disclose facts; facts by the defendant; act; (4) of action on t h e p a r t action by (3) i n d u c e m e n t the p l a i n t i f f to The misrepresented and other complaint alleged that list" items h i s or her MFS had to injury." 682 S o . 2 d 6 1 , 63 and suppressed 23 of material of the p l a i n t i f f that i t would correct the cracked "punch fraudulent of the defendant to (2) c o n c e a l m e n t o r n o n d i s c l o s u r e Lambert v. M a i l H a n d l e r s B e n e f i t P l a n , 1996). for (Ala. continually tile flooring the true facts 2110120 regarding Bella the d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the further detriment, by alleged the facts regarding order to the MFS trial also had "not offered the r e s u l t o f any the was to evidence suppression were to cause presented evidence and § the principals, or problems truthful stated regarding including inspection, Additionally, in f r a u d by to filing the its of the suit the future. have had suit. "that i f [MFS] floors repair and immediately indicating that s l a b upon which had Further, one of the Bella aware of Bella's punch findings initiated of been list its litigation." H a w k i n s ' s v e r i f i e d a n s w e r i n d i c a t e s t h a t he 24 the Bella would have a l l the the were disagree. Specifically, Parmar, to Bella damages We i t been in claim that deficiencies Suresh that tile concrete of problems. and MFS." evidence those filed its ability I would delay i t s alleged i n d i c a t i n g that affidavit which hotel. suppression 6-5-221(a) that that i t would have t i m e l y presented the induced the correct B e l l a presented laid potential items, to aware of d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the tiles issues pursuant any case, and of concluded that B e l l a ' s suppression time-barred MFS been d e f i c i e n c i e s , to court this had opportunities was In i t misrepresentations allow The that construction had 2110120 notified MFS's light-weight we i n the and that there Bella's judgment i n f a v o r the trial the guest court Finally, to are genuine suppression o f MFS for on Bella find that MFS that applicable statute of it that the correct MFS trial listed on file estopped claims erred "punch such lawsuit. a the defects, list," was laid concrete because material the summary remand the of this fact cause to claim. court erred in from asserting the were barred the Specifically, i n not by Bella finding that MFS statue of l i m i t a t i o n s because, as which 25 tile of trial limitations. court causing reverse we the concealed construction a l l the issues of Claim Bella's estopped from a s s e r t i n g the says, was Therefore, c l a i m and that was usage throughout the claim, this argues defense was bathrooms further proceedings affirmative contends improper break-room areas. Estoppel failing the were w i d e s p r e a d c r a c k s lobby conclude regarding in that would cause f u r t h e r i s s u e s once the that there slab manager concrete c r a c k i n g and and project defects the had and cracked had tile induced agreed to flooring, Bella not to 2110120 In trial i t sorder court equitable denying Bella's explicitly estoppel postjudgment rejected applied, Bella's motion, the argument that stating: " F u r t h e r m o r e , e s t o p p e l p r i n c i p l e s do n o t a p p l y . See C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v . C o c h r a n e R o o f i n g & M e t a l Co., I n c . , 547 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 9 , 1 1 6 7 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . I t i s c e r t a i n l y true i n t h i s state that ' i f a defendant r e p r e s e n t s t h a t a l a w s u i t i s u n n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e he i n t e n d s t o t a k e c a r e o f t h e p r o b l e m he i s l i k e w i s e e s t o p p e d from r a i s i n g t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s as a d e f e n s e . ' I d . However, t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e a c t i o n s o f MFS i n t h i s c a s e c o u l d b e construed a s a p r o m i s e t o make r e p a i r s i n r e t u r n f o r a p r o m i s e by B e l l a n o t t o s u e . I d . " We agree indicate that action. the year estoppel after 3 that the record applicable that because the evidence listed the hotel on t h e "punch been issued list" were d e f e c t s to this in Bella to for at least a i t s certificate the f l o o r i n g subcontractor, there does n o t contained MFS h a d b e e n w o r k i n g w i t h had and because n o t i f i e d MFS t h a t court p r i n c i p l e s were indicates that the items occupancy had the t r i a l Bella asserts record correct with of Hawkins, i n the concrete upon S p e c i f i c a l l y , B e l l a r e p e a t e d l y n o t e s t h a t an e l e c t r o n i c m a i l message f r o m MFS's p r i n c i p a l s e n t on A p r i l 27, 2007, w h i c h was s u b m i t t e d a s a n e x h i b i t i n o p p o s i t i o n t o M F S ' s s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , s t a t e d t h a t MFS's " i n t e n t i o n s h a v e always been, and s t i l l a r e t o honor [ i t s ] o b l i g a t i o n s and remedy e a c h a n d e v e r y w a r r a n t y i t e m on y o u r h o t e l . " 3 26 2110120 which the t i l e was laid, MFS should be estopped able to a s s e r t a s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s defense. its a r g u m e n t on Mobile, 410 appeal, So. 2 d 19 Bella ( A l a . 1982), So. 2 d 1146 858 ( A l a .1983), and Parker (1932) . noted i n i t sorder, v. Ward, Parte County Youngblood, of 413 445 S o . 224 A l a . 8 0 , 1 3 9 S o . factual ( A l a .1989), which the t r i a l o u r supreme c o u r t of e q u i t a b l e estoppel set forth limited i n the cases situation strikingly similar Cochrane, o u r supreme court argument that asserting defendants, In Ex v. 2d 215 However, i n C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v. Cochrane R o o f i n g C o . , 547 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 9 induced on Mason being In asserting ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) , A r k e l L a n d Co. v . C a g l e , Metal In relies from the the defendants by c o o p e r a t i n g principles, not to f i l e i t s conclusion cites defense plaintiff's because the I d . a t 1167-68. equitable-estoppel stated: "Finally, i f these e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e s were taken t o t h e i r l i m i t s they could y i e l d ridiculous r e s u l t s t h a t would, i n e f f e c t , negate the s t a t u t e of limitations. For instance, i n the construction i n d u s t r y i t i s c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t an owner and an architect could continue some form of working 27 from to r e p a i r the roof, a lawsuit. the in a case. have been e s t o p p e d limiting o u r supreme c o u r t Bella rejected the i n attempting court the p r i n c i p l e s to the current statute-of-limitations the p l a i n t i f f s reaching should & 2110120 r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r t e n o r more y e a r s a f t e r a b u i l d i n g was c e r t i f i e d t o b e c o m p l e t e . I f e s t o p p e l p r e v e n t e d the a s s e r t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s as a d e f e n s e , t h e n t h e o w n e r c o u l d f i l e s u i t many y e a r s a f t e r t h e c o n t r a c t was c o m p l e t e d , c l a i m i n g t h a t he was unsatisfied with the initial design or c o n s t r u c t i o n , b u t t h a t he h a d b e e n ' i n d u c e d ' n o t t o f i l e s u i t d u r i n g t h e y e a r s t h a t t h e a r c h i t e c t was either consulting with him or making repairs. Clearly, estoppel was n o t meant to defeat the s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s d e f e n s e i n e v e r y case where a d e f e n d a n t a t t e m p t s t o remedy p r o b l e m s t h a t m i g h t otherwise lead to a lawsuit." Id. Like of the i n Cochrane, i t i s undisputed cracked issued tile flooring i t s certificate Further, of from that the occupancy B e l l a was time on the hotel April 5, B e l l a was w e l l a w a r e o f i t s r i g h t t o s u e MFS, p a r t i e s agree that a two-year s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s , to § 6-5-221, aware of the a l t h o u g h MFS year after applies tile-flooring they had months from been B e l l a continued relied We upon claims. defects from Thus, April had attempted t o r e p a i r the d e f e c t s issue, lawsuit. to Bella's to wait the date i t was conclude MFS's discovered that a total aware Bella continuous 28 without repair 2006. and t h e pursuant Bella was and, f o r an e n t i r e remedying o f two y e a r s n o t have work, was 2006, of the defects could aware and the four to f i l e a reasonably which never 2110120 corrected, even failing to file therefore, we determining temporarily, as a reason f o r suit within the applicable limitations conclude that that the to Bella's inapplicable the defects, the t r i a l doctrine claim of court d i d not e r r i n equitable regarding period; estoppel was cracked tile the flooring. Conclusion Accordingly, in favor o f MFS beneficiary training claim, flooring. on claim, construction favor we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l o f MFS construction negligent-hiring, regarding reverse claim regarding the t r i a l court tile for further Bryan, P . J . , and Pittman J . , concurs and - negligent- cracking of tile judgment i n and i t s n e g l i g e n t - other than the claim a n d we r e m a n d the cause proceedings. I N PART; AND REMANDED. and Moore, J J . , concur. i n the result, 29 and summary claim the defects A F F I R M E D I N PART; R E V E R S E D Thompson, claim, flooring, third-party- -supervision, court's suppression summary j u d g m e n t claim, the widespread the t r i a l on B e l l a ' s concerning the cracked to wantonness breach-of-contract claim We Bella's court's without writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.