Gerald V. Salter v. Michael F. Moseley

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 7/27/12 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110406 G e r a l d V. S a l t e r v. M i c h a e l F. Moseley Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-10-1360) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . Gerald V. Salter ("Gerald") judgment i n f a v o r o f M i c h a e l Sometime b e f o r e business appeals from a summary F. M o s e l e y . We a f f i r m . 2003, M. T a y l o r Dawson, J r . , b e g a n doing as a s o l e p r o p r i e t o r u n d e r t h e name "Andrew & Dawson, 2110406 a proprietorship" doing business corporation ("the ("the p r o p r i e t o r s h i p " ) . A f t e r Dawson b e g a n as the proprietorship and b e f o r e t o engage i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n Dawson, who owned s h a r e s o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , as t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p corporation. license after According to Gerald, issued corporation business. c o n t i n u e d t o do the formation Dawson h e l d a contractor's i n t h e name o f t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p , operated as a contractor of the based and t h e on contractor's license. I n addition, the proprietorship p e r f o r m a n c e bonds f o r t h e c o r p o r a t i o n p r o j e c t s because the c o r p o r a t i o n "the on l a r g e lacked t o o b t a i n them. I n 2003, t h e c o r p o r a t i o n two a was f o r m e d u n d e r t h e name Andrew & Dawson, I n c . corporation"), business 2003, that obtained construction s u f f i c i e n t net worth contracted t o perform l a r g e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t s , w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s r e f e r t o as S t . John's project." Church We w i l l refer project" t o those p r o j e c t s . " According to Gerald, obtained the contracts the c o n t r a c t o r ' s and " t h e Auburn two p r o j e c t s the corporation to construct Water as " t h e two c o u l d n o t have t h e two p r o j e c t s without l i c e n s e i n t h e name o f t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p a n d p e r f o r m a n c e bonds o b t a i n e d by t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p . On J a n u a r y 1, 2004, Dawson a s s i g n e d M o s e l e y , who was an 2 2110406 e m p l o y e e and s h a r e h o l d e r o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , t h e a s s e t s Dawson had u s e d i n d o i n g b u s i n e s s as t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p and t h e right t o use t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p ' s name. I n A u g u s t 2004, M o s e l e y s o l d his shares of the corporation to Gerald and Brent G e r a l d ' s s o n . E v e n t u a l l y , G e r a l d and B r e n t became t h e Salter, owners of a l l the shares of the c o r p o r a t i o n . On November 1, 2004, M o s e l e y s o l d G e r a l d t h e f i x e d a s s e t s and equipment he had used in doing business as the p r o p r i e t o r s h i p and t h e r i g h t t o use t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p ' s name. That sale was memorialized in a written asset-purchase a g r e e m e n t ("the a s s e t - p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t " ) . I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , the asset-purchase agreement p r o v i d e d : " T h i s A s s e t P u r c h a s e A g r e e m e n t ( t h e 'Agreement') e n t e r e d i n t o on t h i s t h e 1 s t day o f November, 2004 ( t h e ' E f f e c t i v e D a t e ' ) , by and b e t w e e n M i c h a e l F. Moseley, an individual residing i n Montgomery, Alabama d o i n g business as Andrew & Dawson, a p r o p r i e t o r s h i p ( t h e ' S e l l e r ' ) , and G e r a l d V. S a l t e r , an i n d i v i d u a l r e s i d i n g i n E v e r g r e e n , A l a b a m a ( t h e 'Purchaser'). "A. Basic Transaction "1. P u r c h a s e and S a l e o f A s s e t s . On and s u b j e c t to the terms and c o n d i t i o n s of this Agreement, P u r c h a s e r agrees t o purchase f r o m S e l l e r , and t h e S e l l e r a g r e e s t o s e l l , transfer, convey and deliver to the 3 2110406 Purchaser the following, which shall h e r e i n a f t e r be r e f e r r e d t o as t h e A s s e t s : "a. A l l f i x e d a s s e t s and e q u i p m e n t o f t h e B u s i n e s s , i n c l u d i n g but not l i m i t e d t o t h e e q u i p m e n t , m a c h i n e r y and v e h i c l e s l i s t e d on E x h i b i t 'A' h e r e t o , a l l i n 'as i s ' c o n d i t i o n . "b. The r i g h t t o use t h e Dawson' or 'Andrew proprietorship.' name 'Andrew & Dawson, & a " I t i s u n d e r s t o o d by t h e p a r t i e s t h a t this c o n v e y a n c e does n o t i n c l u d e any a s s e t s o f Andrew & Dawson, I n c . , o r any p e r s o n a l a s s e t s o f M i c h a e l F. Moseley not used i n the B u s i n e s s . " "b. S e l l e r agrees to indemnify Purchaser from and a g a i n s t ... any and a l l l o s s e s , a c t i o n s and c o s t o f d e f e n s e o f a c t i o n s r e s u l t i n g from, arising out of or relating to c o n t r a c t s e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e S e l l e r p r i o r t o the E f f e c t i v e Date." ( C a p i t a l i z a t i o n a l t e r e d ; e m p h a s i s added.) A t some p o i n t , t h e c o s t s o f c o n s t r u c t i n g e a c h o f t h e projects began t o provided approximately it i n completing to the exceed its total $570,000 t o t h e corporation entities price. Moseley corporation to t h e two p r o j e c t s . Dawson a l s o p r o v i d e d for that assist funds purpose. I n 2008, Dawson s u e d G e r a l d , other contract two i n which Gerald 4 Brent, and the c o r p o r a t i o n , B r e n t owned an and interest, 2110406 c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e f u n d s he had p r o v i d e d t o t h e c o r p o r a t i o n f o r the completion of the Gerald, Brent, and t h e c o r p o r a t i o n had Gerald, Brent, counterclaims and p r o j e c t s had the been l o a n s not corporation asserted against Dawson. Gerald, a motion for leave party complaint a g a i n s t M o s e l e y . On Brent, the s e t t l e m e n t agreement ("the t h i n g s , the s e t t l e m e n t and to a the third- 2009, Dawson, signed a s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t " ) . Among o t h e r agreement p r o v i d e d t h a t M o s e l e y would to Dawson amount mortgage t o secure file Moseley Dawson $125,000, t h a t G e r a l d w o u l d e x e c u t e the various and pay in that loans. Brent, O c t o b e r 8, corporation, and r e p a i d the also f i l e d corporation Gerald, two of $125,000 a note ("the payable note") t h e payment o f t h e n o t e ( " t h e and a mortgage"), and t h a t any c l a i m s G e r a l d m i g h t have a g a i n s t M o s e l e y b a s e d on the asset-purchase settlement. Dawson After the dismissed corporation, interest, agreement and and settlement his the t h e i r counterclaims 2009, and b e f o r e May claims other Gerald, were agreement against entities Brent, excepted and the was Gerald, i n which from executed, Brent, they corporation owned 2010, the an dismissed a g a i n s t Dawson. Sometime a f t e r O c t o b e r 24, the 8, Dawson p u b l i s h e d a n o t i c e t h a t 5 2110406 he was f o r e c l o s i n g the mortgage i n a newspaper. On May 24, 2010, Gerald Conecuh C i r c u i t C o u r t s u e d Dawson and Moseley i n the s e e k i n g an i n j u n c t i o n e n j o i n i n g Dawson f r o m f o r e c l o s i n g t h e m o r t g a g e and s e e k i n g an a w a r d o f damages against Moseley. Against Moseley only, Gerald's complaint s t a t e d c l a i m s of breach of c o n t r a c t , breach of f i d u c i a r y bad faith, suppression, Subsequently, and Gerald's dismissed. Gerald claim The and for Conecuh misrepresentation. and Dawson s e t t l e d an injunction Circuit Court November complaint. filed Gerald 11, After a motion filed November 1, November 14, a 2010, then Moseley parties conducted for a summary judgment 2011. to Following 2011, entered the a Dawson summary the the t r i a l court"). Gerald's discovery, on was transferred October 2011. motion on court, trial judgment Moseley 6, summary-judgment a hearing, dispute, answered the response their against a c t i o n t o t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t ( " t h e On duty, on favor of in M o s e l e y w i t h o u t s p e c i f y i n g t h e b a s i s f o r t h e summary j u d g m e n t . On December 11, which the t r i a l 14, 2012, 2011, Gerald filed a postjudgment c o u r t d e n i e d on December 13, Gerald t i m e l y appealed 6 2011. On motion, January t o t h e supreme c o u r t , w h i c h 2110406 t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal to t h i s c o u r t pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), A l a . Code 1975. "We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de novo. A m e r i c a n L i b e r t y I n s . Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 825 So. 2d 786 (Ala. 2002). "'We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t used i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the evidence p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l court c r e a t e d a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Once a p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t establishes that no genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s , the burden s h i f t s t o the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. "Substantial evidence" i s " e v i d e n c e o f 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 e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e 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 . " I n r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , we v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and e n t e r t a i n s u c h r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d have b e e n f r e e to draw.' "Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.[ v. DPF A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . ] , 792 So. 2d [369] a t 372 [(Ala. 2000)] (citations o m i t t e d ) , quoted in American L i b e r t y I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d a t 790." P o t t e r v. First R e a l E s t a t e Co., 844 So. 2d 540, 545 (Ala. 2002). G e r a l d ' s b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t s t a t e s t h a t he does n o t seek r e v i e w o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i s c l a i m s o f breach of fiduciary duty, bad 7 faith, suppression, and 2110406 misrepresentation does n o t argue ( G e r a l d ' s p r i n c i p a l b r i e f a t p. 9 ) , and he that the t r i a l summary j u d g m e n t w i t h has abandoned those Counties respect claims. Gas D i s t . , court erred t o those i n entering c l a i m s . Thus, See T u c k e r v. a Gerald Cullman-Jefferson 864 So. 2d 317, 319 ( A l a . 2003) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d a b a n d o n e d two o f h i s c l a i m s b y failing t o a r g u e t h a t t h e e n t r y o f a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o those c l a i m s was e r r o n e o u s ) . judgment w i t h duty, respect bad f a i t h , T h e r e f o r e , we a f f i r m t h e summary to the claims suppression, summary claim. judgment Gerald with bases respect Purchaser fiduciary court erred i n entering to h i s breach-of-contract h i s breach-of-contract p r o v i s i o n of the asset-purchase agrees t o indemnify of and m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . I d . G e r a l d does a r g u e t h a t t h e t r i a l a of breach claim on agreement s t a t i n g t h a t " S e l l e r f r o m a n d a g a i n s t ... any a n d a l l l o s s e s , a c t i o n s and c o s t o f d e f e n s e o f a c t i o n s r e s u l t i n g arising the out of or r e l a t i n g t o c o n t r a c t s entered from, i n t o by t h e S e l l e r p r i o r t o t h e E f f e c t i v e D a t e . " (Emphasis added.) As u s e d in the asset-purchase "Michael F. Moseley, agreement, an the term individual ... "Seller" doing Andrew & Dawson, a p r o p r i e t o r s h i p , " and t h e t e r m 8 means business as "Purchaser" 2110406 means " G e r a l d V. Salter, an i n d i v i d u a l . " Thus, by i t s t e r m s , t h a t i n d e m n i t y p r o v i s i o n i n d e m n i f i e s o n l y G e r a l d ; i t does n o t indemnify the provision indemnifies sustains doing as corporation. a result business indemnify as Gerald Gerald of the from provision claimed because, from by and contracts and against entered into only; losses he that losses by he Moseley i t does not sustains as a i n t o by t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . t h a t Moseley had Gerald i t s terms, against proprietorship r e s u l t of c o n t r a c t s entered Gerald Moreover, said, breached the indemnity Moseley had not indemnified G e r a l d f o r l o s s e s G e r a l d h a d s u s t a i n e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e two projects. Moseley summary-judgment asserted motion as that one Gerald of the could grounds not for his establish prima f a c i e case of b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t because, Moseley Gerald prove an essential c l a i m . See, e.g., So. 2d said, c o u l d n o t p r o v e t h a t he i n d i v i d u a l l y h a d s u f f e r e d any damages as a r e s u l t o f t h e two p r o j e c t s and, t h e r e f o r e , not a 1008, 1013 breach-of-contract element of his could breach-of-contract S t a t e Farm F i r e & Cas. Co. v. W i l l i a m s , ( A l a . 2005) ("In order to p r e v a i l 926 on a c l a i m , a p l a i n t i f f must e s t a b l i s h : (1) t h e e x i s t e n c e of a v a l i d c o n t r a c t b i n d i n g the p a r t i e s , 9 (2) h i s own 2110406 performance under the contract, (3) n o n p e r f o r m a n c e u n d e r t h e c o n t r a c t , and the defendant's (4) r e s u l t i n g damages." (emphasis a d d e d ) ) . M o s e l e y a s s e r t e d t h a t a l l the the two p r o j e c t s had undisputed reflected that as two a l l the losses c o r p o r a t i o n and b e e n s u f f e r e d by losses to the Nonetheless, individually from Gerald the corporation's losses shareholder the of the the from corporation. two corporation on from It is projects the t h a t G e r a l d d i d n o t c l a i m any p r o j e c t s on h i s p e r s o n a l losses were books of the l o s s e s from the income-tax r e t u r n s . argues that two projects are his corporation. he because, losses 1 In suffered he because addition, damages says, he Gerald the is a argues The supreme c o u r t has h e l d t h a t a s h a r e h o l d e r of a c o r p o r a t i o n c a n n o t p r o s e c u t e a c l a i m on h i s own b e h a l f f o r an i n j u r y to the c o r p o r a t i o n i f the s h a r e h o l d e r ' s l o s s i s merely i n c i d e n t a l t o h i s o r h e r s t a t u s as a s h a r e h o l d e r . See, e.g., A l t r u s t F i n . S e r v s . , I n c . v. Adams, 76 So. 2d 228, 246-47 ( A l a . 2011) (holding t h a t shareholders of a c o r p o r a t i o n c o u l d not prosecute a p r o f e s s i o n a l - n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m on t h e i r own b e h a l f a g a i n s t an a c c o u n t i n g f i r m t h a t had p e r f o r m e d a u d i t s f o r t h e c o r p o r a t i o n b e c a u s e t h e s h a r e h o l d e r s ' l o s s e s were m e r e l y i n c i d e n t a l t o t h e i r s t a t u s as s h a r e h o l d e r s ) . Gerald does n o t a r g u e t h a t h i s l o s s e s as a s h a r e h o l d e r were a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n i n c i d e n t a l t o h i s s t a t u s as a s h a r e h o l d e r . 1 M o r e o v e r , G e r a l d does n o t e x p l a i n how t h e l o s s e s s u f f e r e d by t h e c o r p o r a t i o n f r o m t h e two p r o j e c t s c o u l d have r e s u l t e d f r o m a c o n t r a c t e n t e r e d i n t o by M o s e l e y d o i n g b u s i n e s s as t h e proprietorship. 10 2110406 (1) that the two projects were a joint corporation and corporation c o u l d n o t have o b t a i n e d the p r o p r i e t o r s h i p because, G e r a l d p r o j e c t s w i t h o u t the proprietorship proprietorship; v e n t u r e between and 2 (2) j o i n t v e n t u r e , the says, the contracts f o r the two l i c e n s e i n the contractor's the name o f the the performance that, because corporation the and bonds the obtained by projects were two the p r o p r i e t o r s h i p the a shared t h e l o s s e s f r o m t h e two p r o j e c t s d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t a l l t h e losses were books; 3 and from the r e f l e c t e d as (3) two t h a t he projects losses to suffered the because he the corporation proprietorship's is the owner on its losses of the A r i g h t o f j o i n t c o n t r o l i s an e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f a j o i n t v e n t u r e . See F l o w e r s v. Pope, 937 So. 2d 61, 67 ( A l a . 2006) ( " ' [ I ] t i s g e n e r a l l y a g r e e d t h a t i n o r d e r t o c o n s t i t u t e a j o i n t v e n t u r e , t h e r e must be a community o f i n t e r e s t and a r i g h t t o j o i n t c o n t r o l . ' " ( e m p h a s i s added; q u o t i n g Moore v. M e r c h a n t s & P l a n t e r s Bank, 434 So. 2d 751, 753 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . Gerald does not assert that the corporation and the p r o p r i e t o r s h i p had a j o i n t r i g h t t o c o n t r o l t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e two p r o j e c t s . 2 The c o n t r a c t s t o p e r f o r m t h e two p r o j e c t s were e n t e r e d b e f o r e Dawson a s s i g n e d M o s e l e y t h e a s s e t s Dawson had u s e d i n d o i n g b u s i n e s s as t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p . G e r a l d does n o t e x p l a i n how t h e a l l e g e d l o s s e s t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p s u f f e r e d on t h e two p r o j e c t s c o u l d have r e s u l t e d f r o m a c o n t r a c t e n t e r e d i n t o by M o s e l e y d o i n g b u s i n e s s as t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p . 3 11 2110406 proprietorship. t h a t he Gerald 4 a l s o d e v o t e s one s u f f e r e d damages as a r e s u l t o f $125,000 t o settle their dispute sentence to arguing (1) h i s p a y i n g Dawson regarding the mortgage and (2) h i s p e r s o n a l l y p a y i n g some o f t h e e x p e n s e s f o r c o m p l e t i n g the two projects. 5 However, G e r a l d does n o t c i t e a s i n g l e l e g a l a u t h o r i t y i n support of Ala. R. brief his App. contain argument r e g a r d i n g P., requires 'citations that to damages. " R u l e arguments the cases, i n an 28(a)(10), appellant's statutes, other T h e c o n t r a c t s f o r t h e two p r o j e c t s were e n t e r e d w h i l e Dawson was d o i n g b u s i n e s s as t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p . T h e r e i s no evidence i n the r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Moseley agreed to assume any d e b t s , l i a b i l i t i e s , or c o n t r a c t u a l obligations i n c u r r e d by Dawson w h i l e he was d o i n g b u s i n e s s as the p r o p r i e t o r s h i p . T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t M o s e l e y , d o i n g b u s i n e s s as t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p , i n c u r r e d any d e b t s , l i a b i l i t i e s , o r c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h e two p r o j e c t s a f t e r Dawson a s s i g n e d M o s e l e y t h e a s s e t s o f t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p on J a n u a r y 1, 2004. M o r e o v e r , G e r a l d d i d n o t a g r e e i n t h e a s s e t - p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t t o assume any d e b t s , l i a b i l i t i e s , o r c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n s i n c u r r e d by Dawson o r M o s e l e y w h i l e t h e y were d o i n g b u s i n e s s as t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p . G e r a l d does n o t e x p l a i n how he c o u l d have s u f f e r e d l o s s e s f r o m t h e two p r o j e c t s as a r e s u l t o f h i s d o i n g b u s i n e s s as t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p a f t e r November 1, 2004, when he d i d n o t a g r e e t o assume any of the d e b t s , l i a b i l i t i e s , or contractual o b l i g a t i o n s i n c u r r e d by Dawson o r M o s e l e y w h i l e t h e y were d o i n g b u s i n e s s as t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p . 4 G e r a l d does n o t e x p l a i n how t h o s e a l l e g e d l o s s e s have r e s u l t e d f r o m a c o n t r a c t e n t e r e d i n t o by M o s e l e y b u s i n e s s as t h e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p . 5 12 could doing 2110406 authorities, Plumbing and p a r t s & Heating, of the record I n c . v. S m i t h , 2 0 0 7 ) . "When an a p p e l l a n t f a i l s argument relied on a p a r t i c u l a r 964 to cite issue, this o n . ' " Jimmy Day So. 2d 1, 9 (Ala. any a u t h o r i t y f o r an Court may a f f i r m the j u d g m e n t as t o t h a t i s s u e , f o r i t i s n e i t h e r t h i s C o u r t ' s nor i t s f u n c t i o n t o p e r f o r m an a p p e l l a n t ' s City o f Birmingham v. B u s i n e s s 747, 752 Realty legal research." I n v . Co., 722 So. 2d ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . M o r e o v e r , we n o t e t h a t G e r a l d argue t o t h e t r i a l duty d i d not c o u r t t h a t he h a d s u f f e r e d damages b e c a u s e he h a d p e r s o n a l l y p a i d some o f t h e e x p e n s e s o f c o m p l e t i n g t h e two p r o j e c t s , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , we that argument authority. even i f Gerald See Ex p a r t e Ryals, could n o t have had supported considered i t with legal 773 So. 2d 1011, 1013 ( A l a . 2000) ("[T]he a p p e l l a t e c o u r t c a n c o n s i d e r an argument a g a i n s t t h e v a l i d i t y o f a summary j u d g m e n t o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l c o n t a i n s m a t e r i a l f r o m t h e t r i a l c o u r t presenting time of t h a t argument t o t h e t r i a l submission of the motion court before f o r summary record or at the judgment." (emphasis o m i t t e d ) ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i r m t h e summary j u d g m e n t w i t h to the breach-of-contract respect c l a i m b e c a u s e p r o o f o f damages i s an 13 2110406 e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h a t c l a i m and G e r a l d has f a i l e d t o c i t e any legal authority i n support of h i s argument individually s u f f e r e d damages. See S t a t e Farm F i r e v. W i l l i a m s , supra, Inv. Co., that he & C a s . Co. and C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v. B u s i n e s s Realty supra. AFFIRMED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 14 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

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.