Jehle-Slauson Const. Co. v. Hood-Rich Architects and Consulting Engineers, JEHLE-SLAUSON

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtADAMS; TORBERT
Citation435 So.2d 716
PartiesCONSTRUCTION COMPANY v.AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, a partnership composed of Donald L. Rich and Jack K. Hood, et al. 81-1018.
Decision Date01 July 1983
Docket NumberJEHLE-SLAUSON,HOOD-RIC,ARCHITECTS

Page 716

435 So.2d 716
JEHLE-SLAUSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
v.
HOOD-RICH, ARCHITECTS AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, a partnership composed of Donald L. Rich and Jack K. Hood, et al.
81-1018.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 1, 1983.

Page 717

Charles J. Fleming and Edward C. Greene, of Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes & Reeves, Mobile, for appellant.

A. Neil Hudgens, Philip H. Partridge, and Michael S. McGlothren of Brown, Hudgens, Richardson, Whitfield & Gillion, Mobile, for appellees.

ADAMS, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Mobile County granting summary judgment in favor of third-party defendant-appellee, Hood-Rich Architects and Consulting Engineers. This case arises from a complaint filed by Sho-Me Motor Lodges, Inc. of Alabama against Jehle-Slauson Construction Company that alleged that Jehle-Slauson breached its construction contract with Sho-Me by performing certain repairs on the Mobile Howard Johnson's Motor Inn in an unworkmanlike manner. In their answer to Sho-Me's complaint, Jehle-Slauson advanced a third-party complaint against Hood-Rich, alleging that Hood-Rich owed a duty to Jehle-Slauson to use reasonable care in inspecting the work performed and the materials used by Jehle-Slauson, and that Hood-Rich had breached that duty. Jehle-Slauson sought indemnity from by Hood-Rich with respect to any adjudication of liability on its part to Sho-Me. Hood-Rich filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the dismissal of prior litigation and the release executed with the settlement of that litigation. The trial court granted that motion and Jehle-Slauson appeals.

Page 718

The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court acted properly in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Hood-Rich. We believe that the trial court acted properly and affirm its decision.

The salient facts are as follows:

The Howard Johnson's facility, owned by Sho-Me, was damaged by Hurricane Frederic in September of 1979. Sho-Me contracted with Jehle-Slauson to make the necessary repairs on the building, and they also contracted with Hood-Rich to supervise and inspect the work performed by Jehle-Slauson. During the course of the work at the Howard Johnson's, a dispute arose between Jehle-Slauson and Sho-Me with respect to the payment due Jehle-Slauson under the contract. Jehle-Slauson filed a complaint against Sho-Me and named Hood-Rich as a defendant. Jehle-Slauson claimed that Hood-Rich had wrongfully diverted and withheld funds which were intended for the payment of Jehle-Slauson, breached certain contractual obligations to Jehle-Slauson for the approval of request of payment, and wrongfully and in bad faith exerted duress and coercion upon Jehle-Slauson, thereby causing Jehle-Slauson to agree to accept a lesser compensation for its work.

The parties settled, and the court dismissed with prejudice the contract action brought by Jehle-Slauson. In connection with the settlement, Jehle-Slauson executed a release in favor of Hood-Rich. That instrument released Hood-Rich of "all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, actions and causes of action, whether contract or tort, arising directly or indirectly out of or in any manner relating to work performed on Mobile Howard Johnson's subsequent to September 12, 1979, under the contract or agreement, express or implied with the parties named above and herein released."

Prior to the execution of the release, Harry W. Jehle received a letter from Michael Salmon, Sho-Me's attorney, informing him that a dry wall problem had arisen at the Howard Johnson's. A dry wall problem occurs when wet sheetrock is used in the repair of the walls, causing excessive mildew in the room. Mr. Salmon informed Mr. Jehle of the possible litigation arising from the dry wall problem and that Jehle-Slauson might be a party to that litigation. Although Jehle-Slauson had knowledge of the dry wall problem, it failed to preserve its rights concerning this litigation against Hood-Rich.

The present action arises as a result of the dry wall problem. Sho-Me claimed that Jehle-Slauson failed to perform its duties in a workmanlike manner. Jehle-Slauson, in its third-party claim against Hood-Rich, alleged that Hood-Rich failed to properly supervise and inspect the work performed by Jehle-Slauson or its sub-contractors.

Summary judgment is properly granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Whatley v. Cardinal Pest Control, 388 So.2d 529 (Ala.1980); Wheeler v. First Alabama Bank of Birmingham, 364 So.2d 1190 (Ala.1978); Rule 56, ARCP. "If there is a scintilla of evidence supporting the position of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, so that at trial he would be entitled to go to the jury, a summary judgment may not be granted." Campbell v. Alabama Power Co., 378 So.2d 718, 721 (Ala.1979); Chiniche v. Smith, 374 So.2d 872 (Ala.1979). Once a motion for summary judgment has been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 practice notes
  • Mackey v. Judy's Foods, Inc., 3-84-0108.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
    • 10 février 1987
    ...v. Blackstock, 484 So.2d 1077, 1083 (Ala.1986) (quoting Jehle-Slauson Construction Co. v. Hood-Rich Architects & Consulting Engineers, 435 So.2d 716, 719 Because plaintiffs have made no attempt to return the consideration for the release, under Alabama law they have waived their opportunity......
  • St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Duke University, C-86-959-D.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Middle District of North Carolina
    • 2 octobre 1987
    ...Fire Ins. Co., 95 Idaho 501, 511 P.2d 783 (1973). 10 See also Jehle-Slauson Constr. Co. v. Hood-Rich, Architects & Consulting Eng'rs, 435 So.2d 716, 720 (Ala.1983); C & J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 227 N.W.2d 169, 180 (Iowa 1975); Carr v. Maryland Casualty Co., 88 Misc. 2d 42......
  • McGuffie v. Mead Corp., Civil Action No. CV–05–S–2473–M.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • 21 février 2014
    ...by summary judgment.”) (alteration supplied) (citing Jehle–Slauson Construction Co. v. Hood–Rich Architects & Consulting Engineers, 435 So.2d 716 (Ala.1983)). Plaintiff relies on the holding of the Alabama Supreme Court in Pierce v. Orr, 540 So.2d 1364 (Ala.1989), which raised the evidentia......
  • Dominick v. Dixie Nat. Life Ins. Co., s. 85-7140
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 18 février 1987
    ...of the releases while seeking to avoid their burdens," (citing Jehle-Slauson Constr. Co. v. Hood-Rich, Arch. and Consulting Eng., 435 So.2d 716 (Ala.1983). As it is, we cannot In Jehle-Slauson Constr. Co. v. Hood-Rich, Arch. and Consulting Eng., the plaintiffs never offered to return the co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
58 cases
  • Mackey v. Judy's Foods, Inc., 3-84-0108.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
    • 10 février 1987
    ...v. Blackstock, 484 So.2d 1077, 1083 (Ala.1986) (quoting Jehle-Slauson Construction Co. v. Hood-Rich Architects & Consulting Engineers, 435 So.2d 716, 719 Because plaintiffs have made no attempt to return the consideration for the release, under Alabama law they have waived their opportunity......
  • St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Duke University, C-86-959-D.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Middle District of North Carolina
    • 2 octobre 1987
    ...Fire Ins. Co., 95 Idaho 501, 511 P.2d 783 (1973). 10 See also Jehle-Slauson Constr. Co. v. Hood-Rich, Architects & Consulting Eng'rs, 435 So.2d 716, 720 (Ala.1983); C & J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 227 N.W.2d 169, 180 (Iowa 1975); Carr v. Maryland Casualty Co., 88 Misc. 2d 42......
  • McGuffie v. Mead Corp., Civil Action No. CV–05–S–2473–M.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • 21 février 2014
    ...by summary judgment.”) (alteration supplied) (citing Jehle–Slauson Construction Co. v. Hood–Rich Architects & Consulting Engineers, 435 So.2d 716 (Ala.1983)). Plaintiff relies on the holding of the Alabama Supreme Court in Pierce v. Orr, 540 So.2d 1364 (Ala.1989), which raised the evidentia......
  • Dominick v. Dixie Nat. Life Ins. Co., s. 85-7140
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 18 février 1987
    ...of the releases while seeking to avoid their burdens," (citing Jehle-Slauson Constr. Co. v. Hood-Rich, Arch. and Consulting Eng., 435 So.2d 716 (Ala.1983). As it is, we cannot In Jehle-Slauson Constr. Co. v. Hood-Rich, Arch. and Consulting Eng., the plaintiffs never offered to return the co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT