Crum v. Johns Manville, Inc.
Decision Date | 13 March 2009 |
Docket Number | 2070869. |
Citation | 19 So.3d 208 |
Parties | Richard M. CRUM et al. v. JOHNS MANVILLE, INC., et al. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
E. Clark Summerford and Gaines B. Brake of Zeanah, Hust, Summerford & Williamson, Tuscaloosa, for appellee Tip-Top Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc.
Richard M. Crum, R.M. Crum Construction Company, Inc., R.M. Crum Construction Company of Alabama, Inc., and the Crum Family Limited Partnership (collectively, "the Crum plaintiffs") appeal from a judgment of the Madison Circuit Court dismissing several of their claims against Johns Manville, Inc. ("Johns Manville"), and Tip-Top Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc. ("Tip-Top"). For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment in part and reverse it in part.
On October 12, 2007, the Crum plaintiffs filed an action against Johns Manville, Tip-Top, and several fictitiously named parties in which the Crum plaintiffs alleged that they had purchased a roofing system from Johns Manville for a building they were constructing. The Crum plaintiffs alleged that Johns Manville had guaranteed the roofing system for a period of 10 years and that, during that period, numerous problems with the roofing system had occurred, including leaks, which they had reported to Johns Manville. According to the complaint, Tip-Top, as Johns Manville's representative and under Johns Manville's direction, had "allegedly repaired the roof problems," but the roofing system continued to experience problems. The Crum plaintiffs alleged that, despite their demands, nothing had been done to rectify the problems with the roofing system. They alleged that Johns Manville had agreed to extend its guarantee of the roofing system but that it ultimately had failed to do so. The Crum plaintiffs' complaint against Johns Manville and Tip-Top included claims of negligence and wantonness, fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.1
On November 6, 2007, Tip-Top filed a motion to stay the case and to compel arbitration. It argued that all the Crum plaintiffs' claims were subject to arbitration under a clause in Tip-Top's subcontract with plaintiff R.M. Crum Construction Company, Inc. Tip-Top attached to its motion a copy of the guarantee that Johns Manville's predecessor-in-interest had issued to R.M. Crum Construction Company, Inc., as well as a copy of its subcontract with that plaintiff.
On November 19, 2007, Johns Manville filed a motion to join Tip-Top's motion to stay or, in the alternative, to dismiss or to order a more definite statement. Johns Manville argued that the trial court should stay the action pending its determination of whether the Crum plaintiffs were required to arbitrate their claims against Tip-Top.
On December 3, 2007, the Crum plaintiffs filed a response to the motion to compel arbitration in which they argued that the arbitration agreement contained in the subcontract was ineffective as drafted. On December 19, 2007, Tip-Top filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement, adopting as its grounds those grounds set forth in Johns Manville's motion.
On January 14, 2008, the trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration and ordered the Crum plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On January 29, 2008 the Crum plaintiffs complied with the trial court's order and filed an amended complaint that set forth additional allegations in support of their claims.
On January 31, 2008, Johns Manville filed a motion to dismiss the Crum plaintiffs' amended complaint. On February 14, 2008, Tip-Top filed a motion to dismiss the Crum plaintiffs' amended complaint.
On May 1, 2008, the trial court held a hearing on the motions to dismiss. On May 8, 2008, it entered a judgment granting in part and denying in part those motions. As to Johns Manville, the trial court dismissed all the Crum plaintiffs' claims except for their claims asserting negligence and breach of express warranty. As to Tip-Top, the trial court dismissed all the Crum plaintiffs' claims except for their claim alleging negligence. The trial court made its judgment final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. The Crum plaintiffs timely appealed to this court. This court transferred the appeal to the supreme court for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The supreme court transferred the appeal back to this court pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala.Code 1975.
The standard by which we review a dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., is well settled.
Nance v. Matthews, 622 So.2d 297, 299 (Ala.1993). Our supreme court has held that "`"[m]otions to dismiss should be granted sparingly, and a dismissal is proper only when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle the plaintiff to relief."'" DRC, Inc. v. Great American Ins. Cos., 901 So.2d 710, 713 (Ala.2004) (quoting Gilliland v. USCO Power Equip. Corp., 631 So.2d 938, 939 (Ala.1994), quoting in turn Hill v. Kraft, Inc., 496 So.2d 768, 769 (Ala.1986)). Furthermore, "[i]n considering whether a complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., a court `must accept the allegations of the complaint as true.'" Crosslin v. Health Care Auth. of Huntsville, 5 So.3d 1193, 1195 (Ala.2008) (quoting Creola Land Dev., Inc. v. Bentbrooke Housing, L.L.C., 828 So.2d 285, 288 (Ala.2002)).2
The Crum plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred when it granted in part Johns Manville's and Tip-Top's motions to dismiss. They argue that the amended complaint satisfied the pleading requirements of Rules 8 and 9, Ala. R. Civ. P. Specifically, they contend that it is not beyond doubt that they could prove no set of facts as to each of their claims that would entitle them to relief.
Rule 8, Ala. R. Civ. P., sets forth the general requirements for pleadings. In pertinent part, it provides:
Our supreme court has written that Johnson v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 517, 519 (Ala.1985). Discussing the issue whether a pleading complies with Rule 8, this court wrote in Mitchell v. Mitchell, 506 So.2d 1009 (Ala. Civ.App.1987):
In the first count of the amended complaint, titled "negligence and/or wantonness," the Crum plaintiffs made the following allegations:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Muncher v. NCR Corp.
...which relief can be granted against Thorn.Bethel v. Thorn, 757 So. 2d 1154, 1159-60 (Ala. 1999); see also, Crum v. Johns Manville, Inc., 19 So. 3d 208, 217-18 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) ("'knowledge by the defendant of the falsity of the representation and reliance on the representation by the p......
-
Phillips v. R.R. Dawson Bridge Co.
...the Alabama courts have not adopted the plausibility standard of pleading applied in the federal courts. Crum v. Johns Manville, Inc., 19 So. 3d 208, 212 n.2 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). Alabama law recognizes a general standard of notice pleading, and "'a complaint is sufficient if it puts the d......
-
Feheley v. Forest Pharms., Inc.
...1334 (11th Cir. 2011).In this case, the Court applies Alabama's traditional notice pleading standards. See Crum v. Johns Manville, Inc., 19 So. 3d 208, 212, n. 2 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). The Complaint alleges that Mary Joubran's decedent, Elias Joubran "shot Sheila Clay Joubran, and then shot......
-
Walker v. Pope, Mcglamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, P.C., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-359-WHA (WO)
...Co., LLC, No. 2:14-CV-99-WHA, 2014 WL 2154223, at *3 (M.D. Ala. May 22, 2014) (Albritton, J.) (citing Crum v. Johns Manville, Inc., 19 So. 3d 208, 212 n.2 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009)). The purpose of notice pleading in Alabama is "to provide defendants adequate notice of the claims against them."......
-
Evaluating the Relationship Between Independent Insurance Adjusters and Insureds: the Case Against Imposing an Independent Duty of Care
...majority of states recognize the judicially created doctrine in at least some context. See e.g., Alabama (Crum v. Johns Manville, Inc., 19 So. 3d 208, 216 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009)); Alaska (Pratt and Whitney Can., Inc., v. Sheehan, 852 P.2d 1173, 1175-77 (Alaska 1993)); Arizona (Sullivan v. Pu......
-
Restraints of Trade
...a price-raising conspiracy, not predatory pricing, and pertained to a different trade route). 39. See Crum v. Johns Manville, Inc . , 19 So.3d 208, 212 n.2 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (rejecting defendant’s argument that Twombly standard should replace Conley under Alabama law “[u]ntil such time ......
-
Table of Cases
...Dist. LEXIS 58417 (W.D. Okla. 2010), 199 Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S. 264 (2007), 383 Crum v. Johns Manville, Inc . , 19 So.3d 208 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009), 165 Crump v. Worldcom, Inc., 128 F. Supp. 2d 549 (W.D. Tenn. 2001), 431 CTC Commc’ns Corp. v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 7......
-
Chapter IV. Restraints of Trade
...among the defendants.”). 41. See Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50; Starr , 592 F.3d at 317 n.1. 42. See Crum v. Johns Manville, Inc . , 19 So.3d 208, 212 n.2 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (rejecting defendant’s argument that Twombly standard should replace Conley under Alabama law “[u]ntil such time a......