Qore, Inc. v. Bradford Bldg. Co., Inc.
Citation | 25 So.3d 1116 |
Decision Date | 12 June 2009 |
Docket Number | 1070865. |
Parties | QORE, INC., d/b/a QORE Property Sciences v. BRADFORD BUILDING COMPANY, INC. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Joseph C. Staak of Smith Currie & Hancock, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for appellant.
Charles A. Burkhart and M. Todd Lowther of Balch & Bingham LLP, Birmingham, for appellees.
This appeal involves a negligence claim by Bradford Building Company, Inc. (Bradford), against QORE, Inc., d/b/a QORE Property Sciences ("QORE"). Bradford's claims arise out of the failure of a concrete slab during the construction of a building on the slab. The slab failed because it was built over an excavated fuel-tank pit that had been filled with material that was not properly compacted. QORE appeals from the Jefferson Circuit Court's denial of its motion for a judgment as a matter of law. We affirm.
When, as in this case, an appellant challenges a trial court's ruling on a motion for a judgment as a matter of law, the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Waddell & Reed, Inc. v. United Investors Life Ins. Co., 875 So.2d 1143, 1152 (Ala. 2003). Therefore, with regard to facts as to which evidence or testimony was in conflict at trial, the Court has set out those facts in the light most favorable to Bradford, the nonmovant.
In December 2004, RKM Leeds, LLC ("RKM"), purchased a parcel of real property from JDW Properties I, LLC ("JDW Properties"). RKM intended to construct a building to house a Walgreens pharmacy on the site and then to sell the developed property to Walgreen Company. Before the sale of the real property, a gasoline service station had been operating on the property. Under the contract for the sale of the property, JDW Properties was to remove the underground fuel-storage tanks and related fuel lines from the property, and RKM was responsible for placing and compacting fill in the pits left by the removal of the fuel-related equipment.
In May 2005, RKM hired Gallet & Associates, Inc. ("Gallet"), to determine whether subsurface conditions would provide the necessary structural support for the Walgreens store. Gallet investigated the site and, on June 15, 2005, provided RKM a report of its results ("the Gallet report"). In its report, Gallet noted that the "store will be located at the site of an existing gas station." Gallet recommended that "[t]he existing ... buried utilities (including existing fuel product lines and underground storage tanks) should be excavated from the proposed building and parking areas."
Soil compaction is performed by placing appropriate fill material in thin layers and compressing each layer with a roller or other compacting machinery before adding the next layer. Fill is compacted to prevent settling of the soil over time, which can undermine the structural integrity of buildings constructed over the settling soil.
The Gallet report also recommended that, after the site had been excavated, backfilled, and graded, but before the placement of any extra fill to raise the grade to the specifications in the building plans, "the exposed subgrade should be thoroughly proof rolled." "Proof rolling" is a process in which the surface of the soil is carefully observed as a fully loaded tandem-axle dump truck is driven over it. Any soft or structurally unsound soils revealed by the proof rolling are undercut and replaced with suitable well compacted engineered fill. Proof rolling does not detect structurally unsound soils or subsurface conditions at depths greater than roughly three feet below the surface.
After the Gallet report had been submitted, RKM hired QORE to perform construction-materials-testing ("CMT") services related to site grading and building construction. The contract entered into between QORE and RKM stated that the scope of CMT services to be performed by QORE "will be in accordance with the Master Work Scope of CMT Services requested by Walgreen[ ] Company and Walgreens' Criteria Specification Fiscal 2005."
The "Master Work Scope of CMT Services requested by Walgreen[ ] Company" included the following "soils testing and site preparation" services:
The "Walgreens Criteria Specifications, Fiscal 2005" ("the Walgreens specifications") included a schedule of "inspections, tests, and similar services represent[ing] the minimum scope of quality control services to be performed," including the following:
The Walgreens specifications also set forth specific requirements for "Sitework/Excavation," including the following:
Further, the Walgreens specifications incorporated the Gallet report. Colin Sewell, project manager for QORE, testified at trial that part of QORE's responsibility was to ensure that the recommendations in the Gallet report were followed.
In addition to providing that QORE's services would "be in accordance with the Master Work Scope of CMT Services requested by Walgreen[ ] Company and Walgreens' Criteria Specification Fiscal 2005," the contract between QORE and RKM also stated:
On September 8, 2005, RKM entered into a contract with Bradford pursuant to which Bradford was to serve as general contractor for the construction of the Walgreens drug-store building. Bradford had built Walgreens stores for RKM on previous occasions. For the construction project at issue in this case, Bradford subcontracted the grading work on the site to Borden & Brewster Contractors, Inc. ("B & B").
Bradford undertook the responsibility to inform QORE of the progress of the construction. However, Bradford's personnel did not know what construction-materials tests needed to be performed, and, as the general contractor, Bradford did not undertake any responsibility to direct QORE as to which tests to perform. Rather, as the firm that was to perform the CMT services for the project, QORE was responsible for determining what tests to perform at each of the various stages of construction and to send an engineer or technician, as appropriate, to perform those tests at the proper times.
JDW Properties or a related entity1 entered into a contract with CDG Engineers & Associates, Inc. ("CDG"), to remove the underground storage tanks and fuel lines from the site. CDG subcontracted the work to Milam & Co. Construction, Inc. ("Milam").
On the morning of October 11, 2005, B & B's general superintendent, Donald Edwards, visited the construction site to observe the progress of Milam's underground-storage-tank-removal work. Edwards noticed that Milam had not compacted the fill dirt that was being placed in the large pits left by the removal of the underground storage tanks. Edwards telephoned Bradford's project manager, Michael Cahoon, to inform him that Milam's dump trucks were dumping loose fill into the pits where the fuel tanks had been and that he saw no compaction...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tull Bros., Inc. v. Peerless Prods., Inc.
...performance and the resulting harm is reasonably foreseeable.’ ” Berkel, 454 So.2d at 501.8See also e.g., QORE, Inc. v. Bradford Bldg. Co., Inc., 25 So.3d 1116, 1124–1125 (Ala.2009); Cincinnati Ins. Cos. v. Barber Insulation, Inc., 946 So.2d 441, 446–447 (Ala.2006)). Considering the six (6)......
-
QBE Ins. Corp. v. Whispering Pines Cemetery, LLC
...2011). The elements of a negligence claim under Alabama law do not require proof of intent or expected injury. QORE, Inc. v. Bradford Bldg. Co., 25 So.3d 1116, 1123 (Ala.2009) ("In a negligence action the plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty; (2) that the de......
-
Giles v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC
...and (4) that the defendant's breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's loss or injury." QORE, Inc. v. Bradford Bldg. Co., 25 So.3d 1116, 1123 (Ala. 2009), citing DiBiasi v. Joe Wheeler Elec. Membership Corp., 988 So.2d 454, 460 (Ala. 2008)(citing Ford Motor Co. v. Burdesh......
-
Bella Invs., Inc. v. Multi Family Servs., Inc.
...evidence of cost of repair is sufficient to establish the damages under the facts of this case. In support of this contention, Bella cites QORE, Inc. d/b/a QORE Property Sciences v. Bradford Building Co., 25 So.3d 1116 (Ala.2009), IMAC Energy, Inc. v. Tittle, 590 So.2d 163 (Ala.1991), and B......