Drue Soti sued his employer Lowe's and its workers' compensation claims handler SRS for the tort of outrage and fraudulent suppression after SRS initially denied authorization for surgery to treat a hernia that developed from one of Soti's prior back surgeries related to his on-the-job injury. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on these claims, and the appellate court affirmed that decision. The court reasoned that Soti failed to present substantial evidence of outrageous conduct or that SRS suppressed material facts with intent to deceive, noting instead that the denial stemmed from confusion over whether the hernia was causally connected to the compensable injury. The hernia surgery was eventually authorized by court order after Soti filed suit, but that did not support the tort claims.
In Ex Parte Covington Pike Dodge, Inc., the case involved a lawsuit filed in Alabama by Lana Henderson against Covington Pike, a Tennessee car dealership, alleging negligent entrustment and supervision after a vehicle it sold was involved in an accident in Alabama that injured Henderson. Covington Pike, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Tennessee, sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its denial of the motion to dismiss and to dismiss the claims against Covington Pike. The court reasoned that Covington Pike did not have sufficient contacts with Alabama to reasonably anticipate being haled into court there, as the sale occurred in Tennessee to a Mississippi resident and the dealership had no physical presence or other ties to Alabama.
In Leeman v. Cook's Pest Control, Inc., homeowners Gary and Kathryn Leeman sued Cook's Pest Control and its employees after discovering termite infestation and damage in their newly purchased home, alleging fraud, breach of warranty, negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The termite control agreement signed at closing contained a broad arbitration clause invoking the Federal Arbitration Act and waiving court remedies. The trial court granted Cook's motion to compel arbitration, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed on de novo review. The court held that the agreement evidenced a transaction involving interstate commerce and that the Leemans failed to prove the arbitration provision was unconscionable due to prohibitive costs, as their evidence of arbitration expenses in other cases was insufficient or inconclusive.
The case involved Mike Stewart, a former Marshall County commissioner, who was convicted of violating Alabama's ethics law by using his official position to hire a contractor for road work in exchange for kickback payments. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that the State's evidence provided minimally sufficient corroboration for the testimony of an accomplice witness under Ala. Code § 12-21-222. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the non-accomplice evidence failed to tend to connect Stewart to the offense and was therefore insufficient to support the conviction. As a result, the Court rendered a judgment of acquittal for Stewart.
In this case, buyers Thomas and Grace Davis sued Terminix and its employee Gary Welch for fraud, negligence, wantonness, and suppression after discovering alleged damage from a prior termite infestation in a house they purchased, claiming reliance on Terminix's inspection report. The trial court denied Terminix's motion to compel arbitration under a clause in the real-estate purchase agreement between the Davises and the seller. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act applied because the transaction involved interstate commerce through multistate corporations and cross-state fund transfers, and that the Davises were equitably estopped from denying Terminix's right to enforce the broad arbitration provision covering disputes related to the agreement. The court reasoned that the claims arose directly from the purchase agreement and the relationship it created, making the arbitration clause enforceable against Terminix despite it not being a signatory to the contract.
The case involved a dispute between Harold Stewart, who operated Amoco gas stations under leases from New Properties, L.L.C., and New Properties along with its managing partner Lewis Webb. Stewart sued for breach of contract and fraud, alleging that New Properties failed to complete required build-out work on a Prattville station to allow a restaurant franchise, while New Properties counterclaimed for unpaid rent on both the Prattville and an Eden station. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for Stewart, awarding $250,000 in damages and rejecting the counterclaims. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that New Properties and Webb had not preserved their sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges for review because they failed to raise the issues in a postjudgment motion or obtain written findings of fact as required by Rule 52(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability