Pugh v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc., 77-367
| Decision Date | 20 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-367,77-367 |
| Citation | 369 So.2d 796 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | Bobby Joe PUGH v. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL SALES, INC. |
Irvin Grodsky, Mobile, for appellant.
Thomas G. Greaves, Jr., and William C. Tidwell, III, Mobile, for appellee.
Pugh appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court granting the defendant's motion to dismiss his complaint. We reverse.
Pugh was an employee of Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Sales, Inc. He sustained a knee injury on the job which eventually necessitated his prolonged absence from work. Kaiser's employees were covered by a Company Disability Plan which provided Inter alia that disabled employees were entitled to receive their full salary for a certain period of their disability and thereafter 60% Of their salary for a period of up to six months. These disability payments were to continue until either the employee returned to work or six months elapsed from the commencement of the disability. Pugh received his disability payments pursuant to the Kaiser plan for approximately two months.
Kaiser urged Pugh to return to work ostensibly because his department was short-handed; however, he was terminated four days after he returned to work.
Pugh filed this complaint alleging that Kaiser fraudulently and deceitfully induced him to return to work; that under the terms of the Company Disability Plan, his return to work automatically disqualified him from receiving further disability benefits; and that if he had completed his recuperation, he would have been entitled to another four months of disability benefits. Pugh did not assert that his termination was wrongful, nor did he seek workmen's compensation. His sole claim is grounded in fraud and the propriety of the trial court's dismissal is the only issue presented on appeal.
The briefs of the parties seem to indicate that the trial judge granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief because the plaintiff could not prove that Kaiser's misrepresentations actually caused him legal damage. It is Pugh's contention that although his employment was terminable at will, Kaiser's misrepresentations induced action on his part which resulted in a forfeiture of his disability benefits. Kaiser responds with the argument that: 1) if Pugh's right to receive disability benefits was not vested, then the right to receive the disability benefits was, like his employment, terminable at will, or 2) if Pugh had a vested right to receive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaye v. Pawnee Const. Co., Inc.
...must be damaged as a proximate result. Earnest v. Pritchett-Moore, Inc., 401 So.2d 752, 754 (Ala.1981); Pugh v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc., 369 So.2d 796, 797 (Ala.1979); International Resorts, Inc. v. Lambert, 350 So.2d 391, 394 (Ala.1977). The listed factors have particularize......
-
Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. Peterson
...Court has repeatedly sustained similar claims of reliance in fraud cases. For example, as was pointed out in Pugh v. Kaiser Alum. & Chem. Sales, Inc., 369 So.2d 796 (Ala.1979), this Court has "approved an action for fraudulent misrepresentation where the plaintiff proved that the defendant ......
-
Keller v. Security Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n
...that neither Waldrop nor anyone else at Security Federal ever made a false representation to him. In Pugh v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc., 369 So.2d 796 (Ala.1979), and International Resorts, Inc. v. Lambert, 350 So.2d 391 (Ala.1977), we held that there can be no liability for fra......
-
Grant v. Winstead
...fact. The plaintiff must rely on that false representation and must be damaged as a proximate result." Pugh v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc., 369 So.2d 796, 797 (Ala.1979); Code 1975, § 6-5-101; Fountain-Lowery Enterprises, Inc. v. Williams, 424 So.2d 581 (Ala.1982); Earnest v. Pri......