Preview:

Rel

04/23/10

Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010

1070213

Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. John W. Wells

1070214

Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Harold Mitchell, as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e e s t a t e o f Reba Mae M i t c h e l l , deceased

1070215

Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. James Newman

1070216

Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Floyd Patterson

1070217

Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Roger Hugh Young and D i n a h Young T a t e , as c o e x e c u t o r s e s t a t e o f P a u l i n e Young, d e c e a s e d o f the

1070218

Owens-Illinois, Inc. v.

2

R o s a l y n D i a n e D a v i s and M a r i l y n Joanne Woods, as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e e s t a t e o f Ruby W i l l i a m s , d e c e a s e d A p p e a l s from C o l b e r t C i r c u i t C o u r t ( C V - 0 6 - 3 1 9 . 8 0 ; CV-06-282.80; CV-06-298; CV-06-299; CV-06281; PER CURIAM. In the s i x separate appeals that have been this consolidated f o r Owensactions CV-05-321)

purpose of w r i t i n g

one o p i n i o n ,

Court granted

I l l i n o i s , Inc. ("O-I"), a defendant involving court's claims asbestos exposure,

i n theunderlying to appeal

permission

the t r i a l on t h e personal deceased; and Dinah Young, Woods,

denial of

of i t s motions W. Wells;

f o r a summary j u d g m e n t Harold Mitchell,

John

representative James Young

of the estate

o f R e b a Mae M i t c h e l l , Roger Hugh of Young

Newman; F l o y d Tate,

Patterson; of

coexecutors

the estate Davis

Pauline Joanne

d e c e a s e d ; and Rosalyn personal deceased.

Diane of

and M a r i l y n

representatives (hereinafter See R u l e Facts

the estate to

o f Ruby

Williams, as " t h e

referred 5, A l a .

collectively We

plaintiffs").

R. A p p . P.

affirm.

and P r o c e d u r a l 5, 2005, and

History July 24, 2006, i ns i x other and/or

Between separate

August

actions,

the p l a i n t i f f s

sued

O-I a n d v a r i o u s O-I p r o d u c e d

defendants.

The p l a i n t i f f s

alleged 3

that

1070213;

1070214;

1070215;

1070216;

1070217;

1070218 liable by

i n s t a l l e d products for certain to that

containing asbestos or deaths

a n d t h a t O-I was allegedly the block that

injuries those O-I

t h a t were

caused

exposure alleged and pipe

products. produced

Specifically, installed

plaintiffs insulation contained Kaylo

and/or

c o v e r i n g u n d e r t h e t r a d e name " K a y l o " I t i s undisputed that O-I sold

asbestos.

i t sentire

thermal-insulation-products Fiberglas install 1958. defense Corporation

business

to

Owens-Corning

i n 1958 a n d t h a t O-I d i d n o t p r o d u c e o r products after April 30, as a

Kaylo

asbestos-containing undisputed 20-year that

I t i s also Alabama's evidence

O-I, w h i c h rule the

asserts

common-law that

of repose, manifest,

has not present than

presented

indicating

i n j u r y a l l e g e d l y s u f f e r e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s 20 y e a r s b e f o r e as a defendant. In A p r i l of the f i l i n g
1

o c c u r r e d more

o f t h e amended c o m p l a i n t

n a m i n g O-I

2007,

O-I m o v e d arguing 20-year

f o r a summary j u d g m e n t the p l a i n t i f f s ' rule

i n each are The

the s i x cases, by Alabama's court denied

that

claims

barred trial

common-law

of repose.

O - I ' s m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n e a c h

S e e G r i f f i n v . U n o c a l C o r p . , 990 S o . 2 d 2 9 1 , 2 9 3 ( A l a . 2008) ( h o l d i n g t h a t i n t o x i c - s u b s t a n c e - e x p o s u r e cases, "a cause of a c t i o n accrues o n l y when t h e r e h a s o c c u r r e d a manifest, present injury").
1

4

1070213; of 5,

1070214;

1070215;

1070216;

1070217; court, the

1070218 pursuant to Rule

the s i x cases. A l a . R. the of App.

However, the t r i a l P., certified that

interlocutory involve a

orders

denying question

summary-judgment law of as to which that

motions there an

controlling ground from for i t s

is substantial immediate appeal

difference orders would

opinion, materially

advance

the

ultimate

t e r m i n a t i o n of and

the l i t i g a t i o n ,

and t h a t t h e a p p e a l w o u l d The trial

avoid protracted

expensive l i t i g a t i o n . case stated, in part:

court's certification

i n each

" S p e c i f i c a l l y , the upon c o n t r o l l i n g l a w :

Court

h e l d as

follows

based

"As there i s currently no affirmative evidence before the Court that the Plaintiff suffered a manifest, present injury such that a l l of the essential e l e m e n t s o f h i s c l a i m c o - e x i s t e d more t h a n twenty years before the filing of the A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t n a m i n g O-I as a p a r t y defendant, O-I's Motion for Summary J u d g m e n t on t h e G r o u n d s o f t h e R u l e of Repose i s DENIED. "See S e p t e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 O r d e r . T h i s C o u r t reached t h i s c o n c l u s i o n based upon i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Alabama law; however, there appears to be a substantial ground for difference of opinion c o n c e r n i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e t w e n t y (20) y e a r common l a w R u l e o f R e p o s e g i v e n p r i o r c a s e s s u c h a s E x p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 825 So. 2 d 758 (Ala. 2 0 0 2 ) , and A m e r i c a n G e n e r a l L i f e & A c c i d e n t I n s u r a n c e Co v . U n d e r w o o d , 8 8 6 So. 2 d 807 (Ala. 2003), and in this Court's o p i n i o n i t would be b e n e f i c i a l f o r an i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p e a l t o be g r a n t e d 5

1070213;

1070214;

1070215;

1070216; of t h i s

1070217; issue

1070218

and t h e r e be a r e v i e w Supreme C o u r t . "

by t h e Alabama

We g r a n t e d O - I ' s p e t i t i o n six c a s e s , a n d we now a f f i r m

f o rpermission to appeal i n a l l court's orders denying

the t r i a l

the motions

f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n a l l s i x c a s e s . Standard of Review only issues i s de 3d o f law and novo." no

"Because material Hosp., (citing (Ala.

this

case facts,

involves

disputed

our review 21 So.

Affinity

L.L.C.

v. W i l l i f o r d ,

7 1 2 , 714

( A l a . 2009)

P a d g e t t v . C o n e c u h C o u n t y Comm'n, 901 S o . 2 d 6 7 8 , 685

2004)). Discussion On appeal, the only issue before this Court i s whether

the 20-year at the time or

c o m m o n - l a w r u l e o f r e p o s e b e g i n s t o r u n on a c l a i m of the defendant's a l l the coexist After actions giving of rise that could to the claim, validly taken, Scenic (Ala.

claim

when

essential so t h a t

elements

including file this

injury,

the p l a i n t i f f i n these

an a c t i o n . Court

the appeals that very

c a s e s were v.

addressed

issue

in Collins So. 3d

Homes, I n c . , [Ms. 1 0 7 0 8 7 5 , J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 ] 2009).

6

1070213; In

1070214; Collins,

1070215;

1070216; of

1070217; 1070218 an apartment building

residents

constructed the apparent

i n t h e 1980s sued t h e d e s i g n e r

o f t h e b u i l d i n g and negligence and

owner o f t h e b u i l d i n g , a l l e g i n g Specifically,

wantonness. they in

the residents alleged that

injuries

r e c e i v e d when t h e b u i l d i n g was s e t on f i r e b y a n a r s o n i s t caused by t h e d e s i g n e r ' s failure with to maintain, adequate a failure to

2004 w e r e p r o x i m a t e l y

construct, safe

and t h e owner's building

reasonably

apartment

fire-suppression moved f o r that the rule and this

safeguards a summary

and adequate escape r o u t e s . judgment, arguing, among

The d e s i g n e r other things,

claims of

against

i t were b a r r e d trial court

by t h e 20-year agreed with of i t . We

common-law

repose.

The

the designer On appeal,

entered Court the

a summary

judgment

i n favor

reversed

the t r i a l

court's

judgment.

fully

examined

common-law

r u l e of repose

and h e l d

as f o l l o w s :

" I n Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l L i f e Insurance Co., 825 So. 2d 758 ( A l a . 2002), this Court discussed the r u l e of repose, stating: "'Since 1858, causes of action a s s e r t e d i n A l a b a m a c o u r t s m o r e t h a n 20 years a f t e r they c o u l d have been a s s e r t e d have been considered to have been e x t i n g u i s h e d by t h e r u l e o f repose. See R e c t o r v . B e t t e r H o u s e s , I n c . , 820 S o . 2 d 7 5 , 77 n.2 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ( " S i n c e t h i s C o u r t d e c i d e d M c A r t h u r v. C a r r i e ' s A d m i n i s t r a t o r , 32 A l a . 75 ( 1 8 5 8 ) , A l a b a m a h a s f o l l o w e d a 7

1070213; 1070214; 1070215; 1070216; 1070217;

1070218

rule of repose, or r u l e of p r e s c r i p t i o n , of 20 years."). The w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d rule recognizes the r e a l i t i e s that surround the i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e passage o f time and t h e a b i l i t y t o f a i r l y and j u s t l y resolve disputes: "'"As a matter of p u b l i c policy, and f o r t h e repose o f society, i t has long been t h e s e t t l e d p o l i c y o f t h i s s t a t e , as of others, that antiquated demands w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d b y the courts, and t h a t , without regard to any statute of l i m i t a t i o n s , t h e r e must be a t i m e b e y o n d w h i c h human transactions w i l l n o t be i n q u i r e d i n t o It i s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e peace and security of society that there s h o u l d be an e n d o f l i t i g a t i o n , and i t i s inequitable to allow t h o s e who h a v e s l e p t u p o n their r i g h t s f o r a p e r i o d o f 20 y e a r s , a f t e r t h e y m i g h t have [ b r o u g h t an action], and after, as i s g e n e r a l l y t h e c a s e , t h e memory o f transactions has faded and parties and witnesses passed a w a y , t o [ b r i n g a n a c t i o n ] . The consensus of opinion i n the present day i s that such presumption i s conclusive, and t h e p e r i o d o f 20 y e a r s , without some d i s t i n c t a c t i n r e c o g n i t i o n of the [claimant's right], a c o m p l e t e b a r ; a n d , as s a i d i n an early case, 'the presumption rests not only on t h e want o f diligence i n asserting rights, b u t on t h e h i g h e r g r o u n d t h a t i t i s necessary to suppress frauds, to avoid long dormant claims, 8

1 0 7 0 2 1 3 ; 1 0 7 0 2 1 4 ; 1 0 7 0 2 1 5 ; 1 0 7 0 2 1 6 ; 1 0 7 0 2 1 7 ; 1070218 which, i t has been said, have often more o f c r u e l t y than of j u s t i c e i n them, t h a t i t c o n d u c e s to peace of society and the happiness of families, "and relieves courts from the n e c e s s i t y of a d j u d i c a t i n g r i g h t s so o b s c u r e b y t h e l a p s e o f t i m e and the accidents of l i f e that the attainment of truth and j u s t i c e i s next to i m p o s s i b l e . " ' " " ' S n o d g r a s s v. Snodgrass, 176 Ala. 276, 2 8 0 - 8 1 , 58 So. 2 0 1 , 2 0 1 - 0 2 (1 9 1 2 ) ; s e e a l s o O x f o r d v . E s t e s , 229 A l a . 606, 6 1 1 , 158 So. 534, 538 ( 1 9 3 4 ) ( " F a i l u r e o f memory, l o s s of evidence, death of parties, the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e w h o l e t r u t h c a n n o t be a s c e r t a i n e d and j u s t i c e done, e n t e r into the e q u a t i o n as a r e a s o n f o r t h e r u l e [ o f repose].").

[T]he " r u l e i s c o u c h e d i n t e r m s of the 'running of the period against claims,' 'absolute bar to unasserted claims,' ' l a c k of d i l i g e n c e i n a s s e r t i n g rights,' 'sleeping upon their rights,' e t c . " and i s a c c o r d i n g l y b a s e d upon "the pre-existing r i g h t to assert a claim." B o s h e l l [ v . K e i t h ] , 418 So. 2d [ 8 9 , ] a t 92 [(Ala. 1982)]. Therefore, the 20-year p e r i o d b e g i n s to run a g a i n s t claims the first time those claims c o u l d have been asserted, regardless of the claimant's n o t i c e o f a c l a i m . See M o o r e [ v . L i b e r t y N a t ' l I n s . C o . ] , 108 F. S u p p . 2d [ 1 2 6 6 ] a t 1275 [(N.D. A l a . 2000)] ("Application of t h e r u l e o f r e p o s e h a s o n l y one e l e m e n t -

Download 1070213.pdf

Alabama Law