Owners Ins. Co. v. Ala. Powersport Auction, LLC
Decision Date | 28 May 2015 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 5:14-cv-00147-CLS |
Parties | OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ALABAMA POWERSPORT AUCTION, LLC, and JAMES WIESE, as natural father of Matthew Hunter Wiese, deceased, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Plaintiff, Owners Insurance Company, seeks a judgment declaring that it has no duty to either defend or indemnify defendant Alabama Powersport Auction, LLC, for claims asserted against that entity by defendant James Wiese in the lawsuit pending in the Circuit Court of Limestone County, Alabama, as Civil Action No. 10-CV-900146, and styled "James Wiese, as natural Father of Matthew Hunter Wiese, a Minor, Deceased v. Alabama Powersport Auction, LLC."1 The action presently is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Owners Insurance Company and James Wiese.2 Following consideration of the pleadings, briefs,evidentiary submissions, and oral arguments of counsel, this court concludes that Owners's motion should be denied, and Weise's motion should be granted in part and denied in part.
Alabama Powersport Auction, LLC v. Wiese, 143 So. 3d 713, 714 (Ala. 2013) (plurality opinion) ( ).
Defendant James Wiese attended an auction conducted by APA on August 27, 2005, and purchased a Model 3206 "Yerf Dog Go-Cart" that had been consigned to APA by non-party "FF Acquisition Corp., doing business as Flexible Flyer." However, "Wiese was not aware that FF Acquisition had manufactured the go cart."Id. at 714-15.4
Soon after purchasing the go-cart, Wiese discovered that the engine would not operate for more than a few minutes at a time. After several failed attempts to repair the go-cart, Wiese stored the go-cart in his garage for almost two years. In September 2007, Wiese repaired the go-cart. On September 17, 2007, [James Wiese's minor son, Matthew Hunter Wiese,] was riding the go-cart and had an accident in which Matthew hit his head on the ground causing a brain injury that resulted in his death on March 6, 2010[, some two years and five months later].
Id. at 715 (alterations supplied).
James Wiese commenced a wrongful death action in the Circuit Court for Limestone County, Alabama, on August 19, 2010.5 By that date, however, FF Acquisition Corp., doing business as Flexible Flyer, had sought bankruptcyprotection.6 Consequently, Wiese's claims were asserted against only APA.
Wiese's amended state-court complaint contained two counts. Count One was based on Alabama's Wrongful Death statutes, Ala. Code §§ 6-5-391 and 6-5-410 (1975),7 and alleged that the wrongful act giving rise to the cause of action8 was APA's breach of an implied warranty of merchantability that arose from the sale ofthe go-cart.9 See, e.g., Ala. Code § 7-2-314 (1975).10
Doc. no. 20-7 (State Court Complaint and Amended Complaint), at ECF 8 (footnote and alteration supplied).
APA's motion for summary judgment on both counts of Weise's amended complaint was denied by the state trial court. APA's petition for interlocutory appeal from the trial court's adverse ruling was granted by the Alabama Supreme Court, which unanimously concluded that "a breach of warranty claim cannot be maintained under Alabama's wrongful-death statute." Alabama Powersport, 143 So. 3d at 716.12Consequently, the Court reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment on the claim alleged in Count One of Wiese's amended complaint, and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the wrongful-death claim. Id. at 720.
On the other hand, a majority of the members of the State's highest court affirmed the trial judge's denial of summary judgment on the claim alleged in Count Two, but could not agree upon the rationale for doing so.13 The plurality opinion held that an auctioneer (such as APA) selling consigned goods on behalf of another (here, FF Acquisition Corp. d/b/a Flexible Flyer) may be held liable as "a merchant-seller" under Alabama Code § 7-2-314 for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability,14 if the auctioneer failed to disclose the principal for whom it soldthe goods. See id. at 720, 723-24 (plurality opinion). The considerations that framed the plurality's analysis were stated as follows:
Alabama Powersport, 143 So. 3d at 721 (alteration and emphasis supplied).
Addressing that question of first impression under Alabama law, the plurality found the rationale for the decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Powers v. Coffeyville Livestock Sales Co., 665 F.2d 311 (10th Cir. 1981), to be persuasive. The opinion in that case turned upon Kansas's version of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is identical to Alabama's enactment, and held that:
Alabama Powersport, 143 So. 3d at 722-23 (quoting Powers, 665 F.2d at 312-13) (alteration supplied, footnote omitted).15
Based upon the common-law agency principles recited in the foregoing opinion, as well as those set forth by the Alabama Supreme Court in Abercrombie v. Nashville Auto...
To continue reading
Request your trial