Weathers Auto Glass, Inc. v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1993 |
| Citation | 619 So.2d 1328 |
| Parties | WEATHERS AUTO GLASS, INC. v. ALFA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. 1920238. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Lindsey Mussleman Davis of Holt, McKenzie, Holt & Mussleman, Florence, for appellant.
Steve A. Baccus of Almon, McAlister, Ashe, Baccus & Tanner, Tuscumbia, for appellee.
The plaintiff, Weathers Auto Glass, Inc. ("Weathers"), appeals from a summary judgment for the defendant, Alfa Mutual Insurance Company ("Alfa"). We affirm.
Weathers is in the business of installing and repairing glass in automobiles. It often does work for customers who have insurance to cover the cost of repairs; some of its customers are insured by Alfa. Weathers complained that, two years before, Alfa had negotiated an agreement with another glass repair company, Safelite Glass Company. By that agreement Safelite would make glass repairs at a price agreed upon by Safelite and Alfa if the policyholders chose Safelite to make their repairs. After negotiating the agreement with Safelite, Alfa began paying Weathers the same amount Safelite had agreed to accept, which was less than the invoices Weathers submitted for payment.
Weathers (1) alleged intentional interference with contract and sought damages for that interference, (2) sought payment of invoices in the amount of $1,500, and (3) sought a judgment declaring that it is a third-party beneficiary of Alfa policies.
Rule 56, A.R.Civ.P., sets forth a two-tiered standard for determining whether to enter a summary judgment. In order to enter a summary judgment, the trial court must determine 1) that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and 2) that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
We affirm that portion of the summary judgment holding that Weathers is not a third-party beneficiary of Alfa's automobile insurance policies. A party claiming to be a third-party beneficiary of a contract must establish that the contracting parties intended, upon execution of the contract, to bestow a direct, as opposed to an incidental, benefit upon the third party. There was no substantial evidence that, when it agreed to insure a policyholder, or at any time thereafter, Alfa intended to bestow a benefit upon Weathers or upon any other automobile repair service provider. Ramsey v. Taylor, 567 So.2d 1325, 1327 (Ala.1990); Colonial Bank of Alabama v. Ridley & Schweigert, 551 So.2d 390, 395 (Ala.1989); Collins Co. v. City of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter Capital Corp. v. Thomas
...be “ ‘direct, as opposed to ... incidental.’ ” Ex parte Dyess, 709 So.2d 447, 450 (Ala.1997) (quoting Weathers Auto Glass, Inc. v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 619 So.2d 1328, 1329 (Ala.1993)). With respect to the third-party-beneficiary issue, the circuit court determined: “The loan agreement of Oc......
-
Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Ard
...bears the burden of establishing that the contracting parties intended to bestow a benefit upon it. Weathers Auto Glass, Inc. v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 619 So.2d 1328 (Ala.1993). "The installment sales and financing contracts between the plaintiffs and Hart's Mobile Home make absolutely no ref......
-
Thomas Learning Center, Inc. v. McGuirk
...parties intended to bestow a direct, as opposed to an incidental, benefit upon the third party. Weathers Auto Glass, Inc. v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 619 So.2d 1328, 1329 (Ala.1993); Ross v. Imperial Constr. Co., 572 F.2d 518, 520 (5th Cir.1978). There was no evidence that Martin and the City of......
-
Boyd v. Homes of Legend, Inc.
...bears the burden of establishing that the contracting parties intended to bestow a benefit upon it. Weathers Auto Glass, Inc. v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 619 So.2d 1328 (Ala.1993). The evidence before the court establishes that Homes of Legend has not satisfied this burden. As noted above, no re......