'Automatic' Sprinkler Corp. of America v. B. F. Goodrich Co.

• Decision Date: 16 September 1977
• Citation: 351 So.2d 555
• Parties: "AUTOMATIC" SPRINKLER CORPORATION OF AMERICA et al. v. The B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY, a corporation. SC 2220 and SC 2220-A.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 555

351 So.2d 555

"AUTOMATIC" SPRINKLER CORPORATION OF AMERICA et al. v. The B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY, a corporation.

SC 2220 and SC 2220-A.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 16, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1977.

M. McCoy Davidson, Jr., and Robert Land of Roberts & Davidson, Tuscaloosa for "Automatic" Sprinkler Corporation of America, et al.

Robert E. Parsons, Birmingham, for H. K. Ferguson Co.

Thad G. Long and James W. Gewin, Birmingham, for appellee.

EMBRY, Justice.

These are appeals by "Automatic" Sprinkler Corporation of America (A.T.O.) and H. K. Ferguson Company from partial summary judgments entered in behalf of B. F. Goodrich Company against both of the appellants, respectively. The appeals are premature and will be dismissed.

B. F. Goodrich filed an action against H. K. Ferguson, A.T.O. and General Electric Company seeking damages on account of breach of contract, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties, resulting from a spill of a highly toxic environmental contaminant on plaintiff's premises. The trial court, on motion of B. F. Goodrich for partial summary judgments on the issue of liability against H. K. Ferguson and A.T.O., entered the following separate judgments:

(As to defendant H. K. Ferguson)

"1. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment in its favor against the defendant The H. K. Ferguson Company as a matter of law on the issue of said defendant's liability to plaintiff under Counts Nine and One of the amended Complaint.

"2. There is no just reason for delay and a final judgment as provided herein is expressly directed to be entered.

"3. Plaintiff pursuant to Counts Nine and One, separately and severally, of the amended Complaint does hereby recover from the defendant The H. K. Ferguson Company all of the losses, damages and expenses of plaintiff arising out of the pyranol spill which is the subject of the amended Complaint, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees and costs of this action.

"4. The plaintiff's recovery under this Order or under any or all orders entered in this action shall in the aggregate be all of the losses, damages and expenses of plaintiff arising out of the pyranol spill which is the subject of the amended Complaint, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees and costs of this action.

"5. The monetary amount of plaintiff's recovery shall be determined hereafter in these proceedings."

(As to defendant A.T.O.)

"1. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment in its favor against the defendants "Automatic" Sprinkler Corporation of America, "Automatic" Sprinkler Corporation of America, a division of American La France Inc., and "Automatic" Sprinkler Corporation of America, a division of A-T-O Inc., as a matter of law on the issue of said defendants' liability to plaintiff under Count Four of the amended Complaint.

"2. There is no just reason for delay and a final judgment as provided herein is expressly directed to be entered.

"3. Plaintiff pursuant to Count Four of the amended complaint does hereby recover from the defendants "Automatic" Sprinkler Corporation of America, " Automatic" Sprinkler Corporation of America, a division of American La France Inc., and "Automatic" Sprinkler Corporation of America, a division of A-T-O Inc., separately and severally, all of the losses, damages and expenses of plaintiff arising out of the pyranol spill which is the subject of the amended complaint, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees and costs of...