GONZALEZ, LLC v. DiVincenti
Decision Date | 13 September 2002 |
Parties | GONZALEZ, LLC v. Roy DiVINCENTI and Professional Forensic Services, Inc. Roy DiVincenti and Professional Forensic Services, Inc. v. Gonzalez, LLC. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
David F. Daniell of Daniell, Upton, Perry & Morris, P.C., Mobile, for appellant/cross-appellee Gonzalez, LLC.
Mark E. Spear and John M. Hunter of Richardson, Spear & Spear, P.C., Mobile, for appellee/cross-appellants Roy DiVincenti and Professional Forensic Services, Inc.
Gonzalez, LLC, owns the former Scottish Rite Temple in Mobile County. After the Temple allegedly suffered damage in 1997 from Hurricane Danny, Gonzalez, LLC, filed a claim with TIG Insurance Company and K & K Insurance Group under its insurance policy, which provided coverage for wind and hurricane damage. Gonzalez, LLC, claims that its insurance agent, Mark Rowley, repeatedly assured it that its claim would be paid. In 1998, while Gonzalez, LLC, was waiting for payment on the claims resulting from damage caused by Hurricane Danny, Hurricane Georges made landfall, allegedly causing more damage to the Temple. Gonzalez, LLC, filed a claim for the damage caused by Hurricane Georges, and this claim was promptly denied. After Gonzalez, LLC, discovered that payment was not forthcoming on its claims for the damage from Hurricane Danny and after the claim for the damage from Hurricane Georges had been denied, Gonzalez, LLC, in 1999 sued its insurance agent, Mark Rowley; its insurance agency, Oakleigh Insurance Agency; its insurance providers, K & K Insurance Group and TIG Insurance Company; several fictitiously named parties; and the agents or representatives of all the defendants. Gonzalez, LLC, alleged negligent failure to report a claim; wanton failure to report a claim; fraud in misrepresenting that the hurricane-damage claim would be paid; breach of contract for failure to investigate, handle, or pay the covered loss; negligent failure to supervise agents and representatives; and bad faith in failing to investigate and refusing to pay claims.
After Gonzalez, LLC, filed this action, the defendants hired Professional Forensic Services, Inc. ("PFS"), and its president, Roy DiVincenti, to perform forensic testing on the roof of the Temple to determine what damage, if any, had been done by wind and rain. Before PFS began testing, Scott Gonzalez, the president of Gonzalez, LLC, signed a release purporting to release PFS from liability for any damage done to the roof during testing.
The liability release stated:
After Scott Gonzalez agreed to the terms of the release, PFS tested the roof of the Temple. This testing included inserting numerous nails into the roof at regular intervals. Gonzalez, LLC, claims that inserting the nails into the roof pierced the water barrier in the roof, permitting additional water damage to the roof and the building. Gonzalez, LLC, claims that the additional damage requires that the roof be replaced. PFS, on the other hand, claims that the nails used in testing were pushed in with the inspectors' thumbs or were "lightly tapped" in with a hammer and that they were not long enough to pierce the water barrier in the roof.2
After PFS completed its testing, Gonzalez, LLC, filed an amended complaint, alleging the claims set out above, and including the following allegation:
After filing this amended complaint, Gonzalez, LLC, agreed to settle the action. The parties signed two different releases, the first dated October 9, 2000; that release read, in part:
The second release of claims, signed by the parties on October 25, 2000, stated, in pertinent part:
After the settlement of the original action for a combined total payment of $1 million, Gonzalez, LLC, filed the present action against DiVincenti and PFS. After an amendment, the complaint alleged that DiVincenti, as an individual, and PFS were liable under theories of negligence, breach of contract, and misrepresentation or suppression for damages resulting from PFS's inspection of the Temple's roof. DiVincenti and PFS moved for the payment of attorney fees under the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 12-19-270 et seq. They later moved for a summary judgment as to all claims against them under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The trial court granted the motion for a summary judgment on August 24, 2001; it did not certify this order as a final judgment under Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.
On September 5, 2001, the trial court noted in the case-action log that it was aware that it had not ruled on the motion for attorney fees, and that it thought that reasonable attorney fees were warranted in this case. It, therefore, assigned the previously appointed mediator in the case to determine DiVincenti and PFS's attorney fees. On September 19, 2001, Gonzalez, LLC, filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Little v. Consol. Publ'g Co.
...Act] claim in a summary-judgment order impliedly disposes of the claim and renders the summary judgment final. See Gonzalez, LLC v. DiVincenti, 844 So.2d 1196, 1201 (Ala.2002). Accordingly, we hold that the summary judgment is a final judgment that will support an appeal." McGough v. G & A,......
-
Norman v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...Generally, one is liable for the actions of an agent but is not liable for the actions of an independent contractor. Gonzalez, LLC v. DiVincenti , 844 So.2d 1196 (Ala. 2002).Lifestar Response of Alabama, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co. , 17 So. 3d 200, 213 (Ala. 2009) ; see also J. Stephen Berry &......
-
Green v. Jefferson County Com'n
...parties to the suit is so closely aligned with his interests as to be his virtual representative." Id. (citing Gonzalez, LLC v. DiVincenti, 844 So.2d 1196, 1203 (Ala. 2002)). Applying this rule, the Court found that "[i]n the Black litigation, the subclass of Jefferson County deputies and t......
-
Langham v. Wampol
...Consequently, we find that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the motion for attorney fees." In Gonzalez, LLC v. DiVincenti, 844 So.2d 1196 (Ala.2002), a property owner sued his insurer's roof-testing contractor and its president. The defendants moved for the payment of attor......