Foremost Ins. Co. v. Indies House, Inc.

• Decision Date: 31 July 1992
• Citation: Foremost Ins. Co. v. Indies House, Inc., 602 So.2d 380 (Ala. 1992)
• Parties: FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY v. INDIES HOUSE, INC. 1910697.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 380

602 So.2d 380

61 USLW 2112

FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY v.INDIES HOUSE, INC.

1910697.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 31, 1992.

William C. Elliott of Parnell, Crum & Anderson, P.A., Montgomery, for appellant.

Robert I. Rogers, Jr. of Bedford & Rogers, P.C., Russellville, for appellee.

KENNEDY, Justice.

The plaintiff, Foremost Insurance Company, appeals from a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Indies House, Inc.

The parties stipulate the following facts.

In July 1985 Donald and Judy Holt purchased a new 1985 model mobile home from Colonel Akin Mobile Homes of Tupelo, Inc.This mobile home was assembled by Indies House, which had utilized, in part, certain components that were finished products, including a refrigerator.

Foremost insured the mobile home and is subrogated to the rights of the Holts regarding fire damage to the mobile home.

In December 1988, the mobile home was destroyed by fire.A report by an expert for Foremost, Charles Point, was received by the trial court in this case.Point stated in this report that the fire was caused by a defective refrigerator in the mobile home.This refrigerator is the one that had been installed in the mobile home by Indies House.

Foremost sued Indies House for the loss of the mobile home, on four theories.Count I of the complaint stated a negligence cause of action; Count II stated a cause of action that fell under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("AEMLD"), Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-500 et seq.; Count III stated a cause of action for breach of contract; and Count IV stated a cause of action for breach of warranty.

Indies House moved for and was granted a summary judgment as to all of Foremost's claims.Foremost appeals from this judgment.

On appeal, Foremost does not fully develop arguments relating to Counts I, III, and IV of its complaint.Thus, our review is focused on Count II of its complaint, relating to its claim under the AEMLD.SeeAla.R.App.P. 28(a)(5);Brittain v. Ingram, 282 Ala. 158, 209 So.2d 653(1968)(analyzing the predecessor to Rule 28);Ex parte Riley, 464 So.2d 92(Ala.1985).

A summary judgment is proper where there is "no genuine issue of material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."A.R.Civ.P. 56(c).The movant has the burden of showing that this standard is met.If the movant has established a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, then the burden shifts to the nonmovant to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.Stephens v. City of Montgomery, 575 So.2d 1095, 1097(Ala.1991).To do this, the nonmovant must produce "substantial evidence" on his or her claim or defense, to create an issue of fact.Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12."Substantial evidence" is defined as "evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved."West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871(Ala.1989).

Indies House does not dispute that Foremost produced substantial evidence on Count II of its complaint alleging liability under the AEMLD.Rather, it asserts that Foremost failed to rebut the possibility that Indies House could not, nevertheless, be liable.Indies House says that undisputed facts underlie an affirmative defense asserted in its answer, under which, it says, Indies House was entitled to a judgment.

We have, in several opinions, discussed the AEMLD generally and the recent evolution of products liability law under the AEMLD.See, e.g., Dennis v. American Honda Motor Co., 585 So.2d 1336(Ala.1991);Caudle v. Patridge, 566 So.2d 244(Ala.1990);Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Haven Hills Farms, Inc., 395 So.2d 991(Ala.1981).We direct readers to those cases for general discussions of the AEMLD.Here, our focus is considerably narrowed to the defense asserted by Indies House to Foremost's AEMLD action.

Specifically, in its answer Indies House raised the affirmative defense of a lack of causal relation.In Dennis we stated that this affirmative defense is shown where the defendant has established "that there is 'no causal relation in fact between his activities in connection with handling of the product and its defective condition.' "585 So.2d at 1339(citations omitted).

In Caudle we examined a case where this defense had been invoked by a defendant, Bill Patridge, d/b/a Off-Road Birmingham.Patridge had sold a vehicle conversion kit to the owner of a truck, who used the kit to convert the truck from two-wheel drive to four-wheel drive.The vehicle was later sold.The plaintiff, Caudle, was a passenger in the truck when a subsequent owner experienced mechanical problems with the truck and had an accident.Caudle was severely and permanently injured.Caudle sued Patridge and others.Patridge asserted, among other things, the...