Nix v. Henry C. Beck Co.
Decision Date | 30 November 1990 |
Citation | 572 So.2d 1214 |
Parties | D. Mark NIX, as Trustee for Bel Air Liquidating Trust, et al. v. HENRY C. BECK COMPANY. 89-1165. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William M. Lyon, Jr., and William S. McFadden of McFadden, Lyon, Willoughby & Rouse, Mobile, for appellants.
Patrick H. Sims of Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal, Mobile, for appellee.
Plaintiff Nix appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant Henry C. Beck Company ("Beck") on Nix's claim of negligence. We affirm.
The facts in this case are not disputed. On January 27, 1966, Bel Air Corporation and Beck contracted for the construction of the Bel Air Mall in Mobile, Alabama, at the time the biggest shopping mall in Alabama. Pursuant to the contract, Beck was to install an automatic fire sprinkler system in the Mall. The Mall was completed in 1967. Problems with the sprinkler system arose and on February 5, 1973, Bel Air Corporation sued Beck, alleging a breach of contract and a failure to provide labor, materials, equipment and services necessary to install the sprinkler system correctly. Bel Air claimed $10,000 in damages, but the parties reached a settlement and signed the following release:
(C.R. 261-62.)
In February 1986, Bel Air Corporation discovered that Beck had used material containing asbestos as fireproofing during the original construction. Bel Air Corporation was negotiating a sale of the Mall at the time of this discovery, but the asbestos material had to be removed before a sale could take place and the Mall could be rendered safe for public use; the cost of the removal was approximately $1.5 million. The present action was filed on December 17, 1987, and the trial court entered summary judgment for Beck on March 20, 1990, holding that the 1973 release barred this action.
Whether a release is ambiguous is a question of law for the trial court. Regional Health Services, Inc. v. Hale County Hospital Board, 565 So.2d 109, 112 (Ala.1990), citing Brown Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Centennial Insurance Co., 431 So.2d 932 (Ala.1983). In determining if the language of the release is unambiguous, a court must give the words of the release their ordinary meaning, Regional Health Services, Inc., supra, citing Food Services Distributors, Inc. v. Barber, 429 So.2d 1025 (Ala.1983), and the release must be given effect "according to its terms and the intentions of the parties thereto." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-109. The language used in the 1973 release is comprehensive concerning the claims sought to be released. Specifically, the release states:
(Emphasis added.) The language is clear and unambiguous. We must assume that the intent was to prevent the parties from asserting any claim or claims that might arise out of the January 27, 1966, contract. The release specifically refers to "the matters and things set forth and alleged in the complaint in that certain suit entitled Bel Air Corporation, a Corporation vs. Henry C. Beck Company, a Corporation," and states that one of the purposes of the release was to settle the then-pending lawsuit. Nevertheless, the following language from Alabama Power Co. v. Blount Brothers Corp., 445 So.2d 250 (Ala.1984), is applicable in this case:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roberson Excavation, Inc. v. Dale Cnty. Water Auth.
...in accordance with contract principles generally, they will be taken as expressing the intent of the parties." Nix v. Henry C. Beck Co., 572 So.2d 1214, 1217 (Ala.1990); see also Ala. Code § 12-21-109 ("All receipts, releases and discharges in writing ... must have effect according to their......
-
Schultz v. Southeast Supply Header, LLC
...into the release are not admissible for the purposes of interpreting or applying the terms of an unambiguous release. Nix v. Henry C. Beck Co., 572 So.2d 1214 (Ala.1990) (an affidavit containing parole evidence regarding the parties' intent in entering into a release was "an attempt to vary......
-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. v. Cochran Plaster
...regard to that issue. Therefore, the trial court did not err in considering parol evidence in that instance. See Nix v. Henry C. Beck Co., 572 So.2d 1214, 1217 (Ala.1990) ("If the terms of the release are ambiguous, then the intention of the parties is to be determined as a question of fact......
-
Martinez v. Hudson
...v. Harry J. Whelchel Co., 410 So. 2d 14, 15 (Ala. 1982). Parol evidence cannot be used to impeach the terms of an unambiguous release. Id. In Nix v. Henry C. Beck Company, the Alabama Supreme Court interpreted a release discharging all claims that accrued to a party under a construction con......