Lee L. Saad Constr. Co. v. DPF Architects, PC
Citation | 851 So.2d 507 |
Parties | LEE L. SAAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. DPF ARCHITECTS, P.C., et al. |
Decision Date | 27 November 2002 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
E.J. Saad of Atchison, Crosby, Saad & Beebe, Mobile, for appellant.
Philip H. Partridge, Thomas H. Nolan, Jr., and Misty T. Long of Brown, Hudgens, P.C., Mobile, for appellees DPF Architects, P.C., Lee Turberville, and Richard Mueller.
John M. Laney, Jr., of Laney & Foster, P.C., Birmingham, for appellees Lee Turberville, and Richard Mueller.
L. Graves Stiff III, J. Scott Dickens, and Catherine R. Steinwinder of Starnes & Atchison, L.L.P., Birmingham, for appellees Todd M. Capes and Capes Engineering, Inc.
Mark E. Spear and David P. Shepherd of Richardson, Spear, Spear & Hamby, P.C., Mobile, for appellee Larry Kerr.
J. Marshall Gardner of Vickers, Riis, Murray & Curran, L.L.C., Mobile, for appellee H.M. Yonge & Associates, Inc.
Lee L. Saad Construction Company, Inc. ("Saad Construction"), appeals from summary judgments against it. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On October 27, 1997, Saad Construction entered into a contract with the Baldwin County Board of Education ("the Board") for the construction of an addition to the Spanish Fort Elementary School ("the Spanish Fort project"). DPF Architects, P.C. ("DPF"), was identified in the contract as the architect for the project, but DPF was not a party to the contract between Saad Construction and the Board. The Board and DPF had executed a separate contract in August 1997, under which DPF was to serve as the architect for the Spanish Fort project. DPF's contract with the Board provided that DPF would act as the Board's representative regarding the Spanish Fort project. DPF's project architects for the Spanish Fort project were Lee Turberville and Richard Mueller. DPF hired Todd M. Capes and his company, Capes Engineering, Inc., as the structural engineers for the Spanish Fort project and H.M. Yonge & Associates, Inc., as the project's electrical engineers.
On March 25, 1999, DPF conducted what was to be a final inspection of the Spanish Fort project. Turberville found a bulge in the lower portion of the eastern wall of the addition. He decided that the remaining work on the job should be stopped, and both Turberville and Mueller ordered Saad Construction to cease all work pending testing on the wall. According to DPF, the initial testing revealed that the wall was out of plumb. Over Saad Construction's objections, DPF conducted further testing and those additional tests, which included drilling holes in the wall, showed that the reinforcing steel had not been installed within the wall in accordance with the specifications in the construction contract. At DPF's request, Capes reviewed the test results and determined that the wall did not meet building-code requirements and did not comply with the specifications in Saad Construction's contract with the Board. Capes proposed two plans for remedial work on the wall. Turberville asked Saad Construction to fix the wall, implementing one of Capes's proposals. Saad Construction declined to use either of the plans proposed by Capes to perform the remedial work, and instead proposed a third plan. The Board rejected Saad Construction's plan and hired another contractor to complete the remedial work.
In April 1999, the Board sued Saad Construction and one of its suppliers, Jim Boothe Contracting & Supply Company ("Boothe Contracting"), seeking a declaratory judgment as to the rights and obligations of the parties under the construction contract and seeking to interplead certain funds it claimed were in dispute between the parties concerning the Spanish Fort project.1 In its answer to the Board's complaint, Saad Construction demanded a jury trial on all issues for which a jury trial was appropriate. The Board then filed an amended complaint adding claims against Saad Construction relating to Saad Construction's work on another construction project at the Rosinton Elementary School, another school under the Board's supervision ("the Rosinton project"). Shortly thereafter, DPF and Turberville moved to intervene in the Board's action against Saad Construction; the trial court granted their motion.
In its answer to the Board's amended complaint, Saad Construction raised as an affirmative defense that the Board was contractually obligated to submit disputes related to the construction contract to the Alabama Building Commission. Saad Construction's contracts with the Board concerning both the Spanish Fort project and the Rosinton project contained identical paragraphs numbered 44; paragraph 44 stated:
Pursuant to paragraph 44, Saad Construction also filed a motion to compel arbitration "with respect to any dispute, claim, or question concerning the interpretation or meaning of the contract documents, or concerning a breach of the contract, involving Spanish Fort Elementary School and/or Rosinton Elementary School." The Board objected to Saad Construction's motion to compel arbitration. In pertinent part, the Board argued:
(Emphasis original.) In support of its argument, the Board cited decisions of this Court to the effect that a party may be required to submit to arbitration only those issues it has specifically agreed to arbitrate.2 The Board continued:
The Board attached to its objection to the motion to compel arbitration a letter from the director of the Alabama Building Commission ("the director") dated June 4, 1999, addressing the scope of his decisions as arbitrator. The director stated: "Please understand that I will not hear matters that are being decided in court." The director continued:
On July 26, 1999, Saad Construction filed a supplemental motion to compel arbitration; the motion stated:
The trial court granted Saad Construction's motion to compel arbitration with the Board. Its order stated:
Before the arbitration hearing, both Saad Construction and the Board submitted their claims to the director. In its submission to the director, Saad Construction argued:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Austill v. Prescott, 1170709
...permitted him to extinguish Prescott's right of redemption under the facts of this case. In Lee L. Saad Construction Co. v. DPF Architects, P.C., 851 So. 2d 507, 516-17 (Ala. 2002), this Court explained:"Res judicata and collateral estoppel are two closely related, judicially created doctri......
-
Dates v. Frank Norton, LLC
...743 So.2d 442, 445 (Ala.1999), overruled on other grounds byEx parte Rogers , 68 So.3d 773 (Ala.2010) ; Lee L. Saad Const. Co., Inc. v. DPF Arch., P.C. , 851 So.2d 507, 520 (Ala.2002). "The burden is on the party asserting collateral estoppel to prove that the issue it is seeking to bar was......
-
Thompson v. Southtrust Bank
...parties or any of that party's privies from suing the other party or any of the other's privies. See Lee L. Saad Constr. Co. v. DPF Architects, P.C., 851 So.2d 507, 520 (Ala.2002), Leon C. Baker, P.C. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 821 So.2d 158, 165 (Ala. 2001), Equity Res. Mgmt......
-
Ernst & Young, Llp v. Tucker
...proceeding between Denson and Brown, thus depriving Unum of the benefit of its contract with Denson. See Lee L. Saad Constr. Co. v. DPF Architects, P.C., 851 So.2d 507, 516 (Ala.2002) (`In Alabama, the "`doctrines of [res judicata and collateral estoppel] apply as well to awards in arbitrat......