Jeannie West Crabtree and Edward Wayne Crabtree v. BASF Building Systems, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/30/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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, 2010-2011 2091044 Jeannie West Crabtree and Edward Wayne Crabtree v. BASF B u i l d i n g Systems, LLC Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t Court (CV-04-3956) PER CURIAM. Jeannie West C r a b t r e e f r o m a summary a n d E d w a r d Wayne C r a b t r e e judgment o f t h e M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t appeal i n favor o f BASF B u i l d i n g S y s t e m s , L L C ("BASF"), e n t e r e d on t h e s t a t e d ground t h a t t h e C r a b t r e e s ' c l a i m s o f n e g l i g e n c e and wantonness 2091044 a g a i n s t BASF were b a r r e d b y t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . r e v e r s e and We remand. On F e b r u a r y 11, 2004, E d w a r d C r a b t r e e s l i p p e d a n d f e l l i n t h e p a r k i n g d e c k o f M o b i l e I n f i r m a r y and s u f f e r e d i n j u r i e s a r e s u l t ; t h e C r a b t r e e s commenced t h i s a c t i o n on O c t o b e r 2004, naming M o b i l e "B," "C," "D," action I n f i r m a r y and f i c t i t i o u s l y "E," and "F" as d e f e n d a n t s alleged negligence and punitive damages compensatory and injuries Jeannie and i n the l a w s u i t . and f o r Edward loss 29, named p a r t i e s wantonness Crabtree's of as The sought Crabtree's consortium. On November 10, 2004, t h e C r a b t r e e s s e r v e d M o b i l e I n f i r m a r y w i t h a f i r s t s e t o f i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and p r o d u c t i o n r e q u e s t s . January 12, 2005, the Crabtrees' I n f i r m a r y a s k i n g i t t o respond attorney to those M o b i l e I n f i r m a r y r e s p o n d e d on J a n u a r y it stated that answer pertinent Crabtrees' 25, i t d i d not possess discovery s u b m i t t e d on J a n u a r y to respond 18, 2005. discovery requests. sufficient As a response time knowledge result, I n f i r m a r y a g a i n on 2005, r e q u e s t i n g a s u p p l e m e n t a l Mobile 18, 2005, a t w h i c h requests. a t t o r n e y wrote Mobile wrote On to the January t o i t s response A f t e r Mobile Infirmary f a i l e d to the Crabtrees' request, 2 the Crabtrees filed a 2091044 motion t o compel d i s c o v e r y . informed the t r i a l In response, court that Mobile i t lacked Infirmary the requisite knowledge t o answer t h e C r a b t r e e s ' discovery requests it o f Mr. C r a b t r e e ' s d i d n o t know t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t time, to obtain the Crabtrees discovery agreed t o d i s c o n t i n u e until Mobile Infirmary because f a l l ; at their efforts h a d d e p o s e d Mr. Crabtree. On November 10, 2005, t h e C r a b t r e e s of i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and r e q u e s t s Infirmary; Crabtrees to i n that second served a second s e t f o r production s e t of discovery on Mobile requests, the s o u g h t t o a s c e r t a i n t h e name o f t h e m a t e r i a l a p p l i e d the parking deck, t h e name o f t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r of that m a t e r i a l , and t h e date t h a t t h a t m a t e r i a l had been a p p l i e d t o the deck, and, i n a d d i t i o n , documents i n M o b i l e were related they sought Infirmary's possession t o , o r were i n a n y way production that referred t o , associated a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h a t m a t e r i a l t o t h e p a r k i n g deck. 29, 2005, M o b i l e Crabtrees' the first first time Infirmary of a l l with the On November supplemented i t s response t o t h e s e t o f d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s ; t h a t r e s p o n s e was Mobile Infirmary informed the Crabtrees that p o l y u r e t h a n e c o a t i n g had been a p p l i e d t o t h e p a r k i n g deck, b u t 3 2091044 that response failed to identify a p p l i e d the product On used, the o r t h e p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s who manufacturer of t h a t product, had to the p a r k i n g December 9, 2005, and again the product deck. on J a n u a r y 20, 2006, Crabtrees' a t t o r n e y wrote a l e t t e r to Mobile I n f i r m a r y its responses Crabtrees to to second set of discovery on second set F e b r u a r y 3, of 2006 a n s w e r t h e d i s c o v e r y no discovery requests, (compelling Mobile the Infirmary which was Infirmary l a t e r t h a n F e b r u a r y 24, A l s o on F e b r u a r y 3, 2006, t h e C r a b t r e e s seeking requests; t h e r e a f t e r f i l e d a motion t o compel M o b i l e answer t h a t granted the the to 2006). filed their first amended c o m p l a i n t , a s s e r t i n g c l a i m s a g a i n s t f i c t i t i o u s l y named defendants "G," "H," and " I , " for having, they alleged, n e g l i g e n t l y and w a n t o n l y i n s t a l l e d an "unknown m a t e r i a l " t h a t had purportedly February Crabtrees' Inc. 7, caused the p a r k i n g 2006, Mobile Infirmary's c o u n s e l t h a t J.F. ("J.F. Pate"), and subcontractor, polyurethane slippery. On informed the counsel P a t e and A s s o c i a t e s CHP Industrial ("CHP"), had b e e n h i r e d by M o b i l e and d e c k t o be and Contractors, Marine, I n f i r m a r y as t h e respectively, contractor with installing m a t e r i a l to the p a r k i n g d e c k ; Mobile Infirmary's 4 charged Inc. 2091044 counsel also material informed that had been filed Pate CHP and applied had On their as requests t o those second and Crabtrees' reference polyurethane manufactured February by 9, 2006, t h e adding J.F. i t submitted discovery parties. 11, 2006, two y e a r s h a d e l a p s e d f r o m t h e date o f Edward C r a b t r e e ' s f a l l . 2006, been the amended c o m p l a i n t , defendants, As o f F e b r u a r y 14, that ("Degussa"). Degussa C o r p o r a t i o n Crabtrees the Crabtrees Mobile T h r e e d a y s l a t e r , on F e b r u a r y Infirmary submitted second set of i t s responses discovery t o Degussa i n t h e responses requests; was to the the only to indicate that Mobile Infirmary b e l i e v e d that the polyurethane m a t e r i a l that had b e e n a p p l i e d t o t h e p a r k i n g d e c k h a d b e e n m a n u f a c t u r e d by Degussa. On M a r c h 2, 2006, t h e C r a b t r e e s n o t i f i e d t h e c o u r t of intention their t o subpoena Degussa f o r the purpose of o b t a i n i n g any a n d a l l documents r e l a t e d t o a n y work on M o b i l e I n f i r m a r y ' s p a r k i n g d e c k . the Crabtrees' second discovery requests amended CHP was i s s u e d a summons, complaint, received CHP's and a s e t of ( t h e f i r s t d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s t o be s e r v e d upon CHP) on M a r c h 17, 2006; on A p r i l not performed responses 3, 2006, a f t e r to the Crabtrees' 5 having discovery 2091044 requests, requests with the Crabtrees' counsel by l e t t e r . a nonparty On A p r i l subpoena sought responses to 10, 2006, D e g u s s a was requesting those served a n y a n d a l l documents r e l a t e d to Mobile I n f i r m a r y o r work p e r f o r m e d deck, i n response t o w h i c h D e g u s s a r e q u e s t e d an a d d i t i o n a l 30 to 45 d a y s t o r e s p o n d t o t h e subpoena. On A p r i l 26, 2006, a f t e r s t i l l responses another May to their on i t s p a r k i n g discovery n o t h a v i n g r e c e i v e d CHP's requests, the Crabtrees sent c o p y o f t h e d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s t o CHP's c o u n s e l . 15, however, 2006, Degussa responded the documents that the Crabtrees' Degussa submitted On subpoena; as being r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e C r a b t r e e s ' s u b p o e n a were n o t p e r t i n e n t t o t h e p a r k i n g d e c k where Mr. C r a b t r e e h a d f a l l e n . 2006, the Crabtrees wrote another u r g i n g CHP t o s e n d i t s r e s p o n s e s On June Crabtrees' first time, 9, 2006, CHP letter On May 19, t o CHP's to the discovery requests. submitted i t s responses d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s d i r e c t e d t o CHP, w h i c h , r e v e a l e d documents counsel indicating to the f o r the t h a t Degussa had been i n v o l v e d i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e p o l y u r e t h a n e m a t e r i a l on t h e p a r k i n g deck. their third amended On J u n e 14, 2006, t h e C r a b t r e e s complaint 6 substituting Degussa filed for 2091044 fictitiously named d e f e n d a n t "G." entered the l i t i g a t i o n for additional complaint; time BASF f o r the f i r s t time by f i l i n g a motion t o answer i n that On A u g u s t 23, 2006, the Crabtrees' t h i r d m o t i o n , BASF stated that amended i t had been " i m p r o p e r l y named i n t h e c o m p l a i n t as D e g u s s a Corporation." On to the September amended adequate 12, 2006, complaint BASF denying knowledge filed an answer the Crabtrees' claims, to respond to the claims, and third denying asserting t h a t t h e C r a b t r e e s had f a i l e d t o s t a t e any grounds f o r r e l i e f ; no limitations answer. On d e f e n s e was January 31, affirmatively 2007, Degussa pleaded filed a in that motion t o d i s m i s s t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t i t , s t a t i n g t h a t D e g u s s a ' s name h a d been changed t o BASF and that, because Degussa had been i m p r o p e r l y a d d e d as a d e f e n d a n t , BASF h a d a n s w e r e d t h e t h i r d amended complaint; as an additional basis for seeking d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t Degussa, Degussa a v e r r e d BASF h a d a p p e a r e d i n t h e l i t i g a t i o n then f i l e d their already. The that Crabtrees f o u r t h amended c o m p l a i n t on M a r c h 7, 2007, a d d i n g BASF as a d e f e n d a n t i n t h e a c t i o n . On A p r i l 11, 2008, BASF filed a motion f o r a summary judgment a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e two-year l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d c l a i m e d 7 2091044 by BASF t o be a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e C r a b t r e e s ' c l a i m s h a d e x p i r e d before i t h a d b e e n a d d e d as a p a r t y a n d t h a t t h e C r a b t r e e s had f a i l e d t o a c t i n a s u f f i c i e n t l y d i l i g e n t manner i n a d d i n g BASF as a p a r t y . to On A p r i l 18, 2008, BASF moved t o amend i t s answer the Crabtrees' affirmative third defenses amended complaint; i t added two (claiming a supervening or i n t e r v e n i n g c a u s e h a d c a u s e d Mr. C r a b t r e e ' s f a l l and t h a t Mr. Crabtree's i n j u r i e s h a d b e e n c a u s e d b y i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t BASF h a d n e i t h e r the ability BASF f i l e d nor the r i g h t to control). On A p r i l 24, 2008, a s e c o n d m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e C r a b t r e e s ' c l a i m s h a d no m e r i t a n d t h a t t h e r e was no question of fact t o be resolved. summary j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d that the period limitations set forth had e x p i r e d . On December i n BASF's f a v o r i n the The 2008, a on t h e g r o u n d applicable Crabtrees' 3, statute appeal from of that o r d e r , as t o w h i c h o r d e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i r e c t e d t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. a p p e a l was 1975, § transferred to this court pursuant to Ala. The Code 12-2-7(6). On a p p e a l , the Crabtrees argue t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t erred i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f BASF on t h e g r o u n d 8 2091044 that the Crabtrees' negligence BASF by were barred purportedly a and w a n t o n n e s s c l a i m s A l a . Code 1975, 6-2-38 ( l ) , the a p p l i c a b l e statute of l i m i t a t i o n s (providing f o r two-year p e r i o d w i t h i n which to bring injuries t o the person not otherwise and a genuine that § against issue actions b a s e d upon s p e c i f i e d i n t h e Code) o f f a c t e x i s t s as t o w h e t h e r BASF n e g l i g e n t l y o r w a n t o n l y p e r f o r m e d an assumed d u t y t o i n s p e c t . As an i n i t i a l m a t t e r , b e c a u s e t h e summary j u d g m e n t u n d e r r e v i e w e x p r e s s l y i n v o k e s a l i m i t a t i o n s g r o u n d , we w i l l a d d r e s s w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f BASF on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e C r a b t r e e s ' barred BASF. c l a i m s were b y t h e t w o - y e a r s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s r e l i e d upon b y The Crabtrees fictitiously argue that they substituted BASF f o r named d e f e n d a n t "G" i n a t i m e l y manner b e c a u s e , t h e y s a y , t h e y e x e r c i s e d r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e a n d BASF t o show t h a t i t w o u l d be p r e j u d i c e d as not a defendant. required relation-back On t h e o t h e r t o show that principle Crabtrees d i d not p r o p e r l y substituted h a n d , BASF a r g u e s t h a t i t would applies statute of l i m i t a t i o n s . by i t s being to be prejudiced effectively failed i t was i f the toll the A d d i t i o n a l l y , BASF a r g u e s t h a t t h e s u b s t i t u t e BASF f o r f i c t i t i o u s l y 9 2091044 named d e f e n d a n t "G" b e c a u s e , i t s a y s , complaint, opposed the Crabtrees s t a t e d t h a t t h e y w a n t e d t o " a d d , " as t o " s u b s t i t u t e , " BASF as a d e f e n d a n t ; BASF argues t h a t t h e Crabtrees before i n t h e i r f o u r t h amended further were n o t i g n o r a n t o f BASF's i d e n t i t y the applicable l i m i t a t i o n s period expired. We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e summary j u d g m e n t c a n n o t p r o p e r l y be a f f i r m e d on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t BASF 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 . Crabtrees for The r e c o r d s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e 1 e x e r c i s e d reasonable d i l i g e n c e i n s u b s t i t u t i n g BASF a f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 9 ( h ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., s o as t o n e g a t e BASF's l i m i t a t i o n s In Ex p a r t e plaintiff Bowman, 986 So. 2d 1152 argument. (Ala. was h e l d t o have e x e r c i s e d r e a s o n a b l e naming a c o - e m p l o y e e i n p l a c e 2007), a diligence i n of a f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t y . Under Bowman, e v i d e n c e o f a c l a i m a n t ' s mere p r i o r k n o w l e d g e o f the identity evidence, o f a p e r s o n and h i s o r h e r j o b i s i n s u f f i c i e n t by i t s e l f , information to indicate that a claimant n e c e s s a r y t o name t h e p a r t y when had the "[t]here [was] Although BASF omitted listing limitations as an a f f i r m a t i v e defense i n i t s responsive pleadings, the Crabtrees do n o t a s s e r t t h a t t h a t o m i s s i o n amounts t o a w a i v e r o f t h a t defense. 1 10 2091044 no logical and n e c e s s a r y linkage between knowledge that an i n d i v i d u a l had r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the q u a l i t y o f the product p r o d u c e d a n d k n o w l e d g e t h a t s u c h i n d i v i d u a l was a p a r t i c i p a n t i n a c q u i r i n g , i n s t a l l i n g , and m o d i f y i n g the p r o d u c t . " 986 So. 2d a t 1157. When t h e C r a b t r e e s had performed deck, they material manufactured information, were i n f o r m e d t h a t J . F . the contracting were that t h e m a c h i n e t h a t makes likewise had been informed applied by Degussa. the work related that to the parking the polyurethane to the parking Immediately Crabtrees P a t e a n d CHP filed after their deck learning second was that amended c o m p l a i n t t o s u b s t i t u t e J . F . P a t e a n d CHP as p a r t i e s t o t h e action. Crabtrees BASF p o s i t s i n i t s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e were made aware t h a t D e g u s s a , a BASF s u b s i d i a r y , was somehow i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e p o l y u r e t h a n e m a t e r i a l , t h e C r a b t r e e s necessarily failed to a c t reasonably by D e g u s s a o r BASF as a d e f e n d a n t a t t h a t t i m e a few d a y s o f when, a c c o r d i n g w o u l d have e x p i r e d ) . the Crabtrees not also adding ( w h i c h was w i t h i n t o BASF, t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d We d i s a g r e e ; t h e l i m i t e d k n o w l e d g e that had been g i v e n r e g a r d i n g Degussa's m e r e l y h a v i n g m a n u f a c t u r e d t h e p o l y u r e t h a n e m a t e r i a l w o u l d n o t have r e q u i r e d 11 2091044 a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n t o add D e g u s s a as a d e f e n d a n t . In a tort a c t i o n , s u c h as t h i s c a s e , i n w h i c h t h e manner t h a t a c e r t a i n product was application applied, or process was thereafter proximately ipso way a certain performed, case alleged in the to have subsequently applied i n c o r r e c t l y i s f a c t o , a proper defendant; slip-and-fall is action c a u s e d an i n j u r y , t h e mere m a n u f a c t u r e r o f t h e m a t e r i a l t h a t was not, the involving a similarly, s l i p p e r y , wet i n a common floor covered w i t h c l e a n i n g s o l v e n t , i t i s n o t t h e maker o f t h e s o l v e n t is generally left the a proper defendant but, the person who i n a hazardous p o s i t i o n . In our view, the in manner solvent Crabtrees acted discovery e f f o r t s and fictitiously named l e a r n i n g f o r the applying BASF back in their defendant diligent s u b s t i t u t i o n of "G" just a f i r s t t i m e t h a t D e g u s s a had further i t as Crabtrees' of reasonably few the lack argues that the in Crabtrees' their Degussa days played the p o l y u r e t h a n e m a t e r i a l to the p a r k i n g a c t u a l l y add the a rather, that after a role in deck. failure a d e f e n d a n t u n t i l M a r c h 2007 i s p r o o f of d i l i g e n c e so amendment t o appears t h a t the Crabtrees the as complaint. to prevent We for to of relation disagree. It t r e a t e d BASF as i f i t were t h e same 12 2091044 entity as D e g u s s a once BASF h a d i n j e c t e d i t s e l f l i t i g a t i o n b y , on i t s own i n i t i a t i v e , complaint i n t o the f i l i n g an a n s w e r t o t h e s t a t i n g t h a t BASF, a n d n o t D e g u s s a , was t h e p r o p e r defendant. We perceive BASF's argument a t t e m p t t o r e t r a c t i t s own p l e a d i n g itself into the l i t i g a t i o n claimed was n o t a p r o p e r i n lieu as an attempting 11th-hour to interpose of Degussa, whom BASF party. B e c a u s e an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may p r o p e r l y a f f i r m a summary j u d g m e n t on a n y g r o u n d a p p a r e n t o f r e c o r d " u n l e s s constraints require otherwise," 1061, 1083 judgment W h e e l e r v . G e o r g e , 39 So. 3d ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , we n e x t a d d r e s s w h e t h e r t h e summary i n favor o f BASF i s due t o be a l t e r n a t i v e b a s i s t h a t BASF i s n o t l i a b l e a matter due-process of substantive law. a question circumstances; on the assumption-of-duty issues questions We of law. argue as that the assumed a d u t y t o i n s p e c t i s of f a c t because g e n e r a l l y t o be v i e w e d i n l i g h t on t h e to the Crabtrees The C r a b t r e e s i s s u e w h e t h e r BASF v o l u n t a r i l y necessarily affirmed such questions are o f a l l t h e p e r t i n e n t f a c t s and other may agree w i t h hand, BASF properly be the Crabtrees asserts that resolved that, as under A l a b a m a l a w , w h e t h e r a d u t y t o o t h e r s h a s b e e n assumed t h r o u g h 13 2091044 a p a r t y ' s a f f i r m a t i v e c o n d u c t i s t o be d e t e r m i n e d i n l i g h t o f all t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Co. , 20 So. Hosps., 3d 108, I n c . v. (scope of a 119 See B r y a n v. A l a b a m a Power ( A l a . 2009); Larrimore, pharmacist's 5 So. 3d see a l s o 513, voluntary 516 Springhill ( A l a . 2008) undertaking is fact- specific). The C r a b t r e e s by submitted to the t r i a l court a l e t t e r , a manager o f "ChemRex, I n c . , " and a corporate renamed merged i n t o BASF, t h a t was a d d r e s s e d t o CHP's owner; i n that letter, the "complications" previous manager that job" (i.e., had stated occurred improper site a p p l i c a t i o n i n p l a c i n g a topcoat deck of the M o b i l e would be present (emphasis respect preparation to and upon t h e s u r f a c e during various of "the product of a lower f r o m ChemRex, times of Inc.[,] the p r o j e c t to work, a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e p r o d u c t s a n d any t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e added). because I n f i r m a r y g a r a g e i n q u e s t i o n ) , he a n d t h e inspect the preparatory provide that, with owner h a d " a g r e e d t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s to entity sent The manager that may be f u r t h e r recommended required" that an i n s p e c t i o n t a k e p l a c e " a t l e a s t once a week t o i n s u r e t h a t a l l parties involved a r e i n agreement w i t h 14 the manufacturer's 2091044 instructions." relied I n a d d i t i o n , CHP's owner t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d upon h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e a g r e e m e n t t h a t " w o u l d have somebody t h e r e to inspect the preparatory and "to inspect the a p p l i c a t i o n of the products." is certainly Crabtree, foreseeable that invitees, may slip coated with and f a l l material while that traversing has been as Edward medical-center a parking improperly deck applied. A l t h o u g h we a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e r e c o r d a l s o c o n t a i n s i n d i c a t i n g that the extent work" Finally, i t such who w a l k t o a n d f r o m p a r k e d c a r s a t a garage ChemRex evidence o f ChemRex's a u t h o r i t y was l i m i t e d t o m e r e l y m a k i n g r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o CHP when r e q u e s t e d o r when a ChemRex attention, record, employee observed we b e l i e v e that, a given condition that the current state t h e t r i e r o f f a c t must r e s o l v e t h e d i s p u t e whether breached, BASF, a polyurethane through duty to material v. N a t i o n a l ChemRex, inspect voluntarily the s o as t o have See King Spa & P o o l 615 ( A l a . 1990) ( q u o t i n g R e s t a t e m e n t (1966)). 15 of the concerning assumed, installation i n j u r e d the Inst., Inc., warranted of and the Crabtrees. 570 So. 2d 612, (Second) o f T o r t s § 324A 2091044 On t h e b a s i s o f t h e f o r e g o i n g f a c t s and a u t h o r i t i e s , t h e summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f BASF i s r e v e r s e d . c a u s e i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without Pittman, J . , dissents, with 16 writing. writing. The 2091044 PITTMAN, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . A l t h o u g h I agree w i t h judgment may t h e main o p i n i o n not p r o p e r l y ground c i t e d by t h e t r i a l summary-judgment motion be affirmed t h a t t h e summary on the l i m i t a t i o n s c o u r t upon w h i c h BASF r e l i e d i n i t s and i n i t s b r i e f t o t h i s court, I c a n n o t a g r e e t h a t a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f f a c t e x i s t s as t o BASF's h a v i n g b r e a c h e d an assumed c o n t r a c t u a l d u t y i n t h i s c a s e . only i s there evidence decision-making polyurethane possession include [i.e., for the CHP] shall but regarding following the intended connection authority material, o f CHP that CHP, as n o t BASF, to technical disclaimer determine the s u i t a b i l i t y u s e a n d assume therewith." a l l risks of sheets the polyurethane express had paramount application data Not i n the material provision: the also "User of the products and l i a b i l i t y i n On t h a t b a s i s , I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t f r o m t h e r e v e r s a l a n d remandment. 17

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.