Case Title: Christopher Howard and Linda Howard, individually and as mother and next friend of Lacy Howard and Katlin Howard v. Allstate Insurance Company et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1071215

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2008-11-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 11/21/2008
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2008-2009
____________________
1071215
____________________
Christopher Howard and Linda Howard, individually and as
mother and next friend of Lacy Howard and Katlin Howard
v.
Allstate Insurance Company et al.
Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court 
(CV-07-631)
STUART, Justice.
Christopher Howard and Linda Howard, individually and as
mother and next friend of Lacy Howard and Katlin Howard,
appeal the summary judgments entered in favor of Allstate
1071215
Gonzales also goes by the names Gonzales Tomas, Diego
1
Gonzales, Julio Tomas, Gomez, Martinez, and Matias.
Preston states that Gonzales was never a full-time
2
employee and that he merely worked sporadically as a day
laborer.
2
Insurance Company, Preston Thompson, Perry Thompson, and South
Alabama Property Services, Inc. ("SAPS"), defendants in an
action filed by the Howards in the Mobile Circuit Court.  We
dismiss the appeal.
I.
On February 26, 2007, the Howards were traveling
southbound on Schillinger Road in Mobile when, after slowing
down to make a left turn, the 1993 Buick Regal automobile they
were traveling in was struck in the rear by a 2001 Chevrolet
Silverado 1500 pickup truck driven by Tomas Gonzales.   All
1
four members of the Howard family were injured in the
accident.
The truck Gonzales was driving at the time of the
accident was owned by Preston Thompson.  Preston and his wife
Rachel own SAPS, a company that cleans and services foreclosed
homes, and Gonzales worked at least occasionally as a laborer
for SAPS.   On the date of the accident, Gonzales and his
2
housemate, Juan Elizondo, had been helping Preston and his
1071215
Preston states that Gonzales and Elizondo volunteered to
3
help him and Perry move furniture that day, that the work was
unrelated to SAPS, and that Gonzales and Elizondo were not
compensated for their help.
3
brother Perry move furniture and items belonging to the family
between Mobile and Baldwin Counties.   After their work in
3
Baldwin County was completed, Preston allowed Elizondo to
drive the truck home to Mobile so that Elizondo could
transport a piece of furniture he wanted and so that Preston
did not have to drive them back to Mobile and then return to
Baldwin County, where he lived.  Preston and Elizondo agree
that Preston specifically told Elizondo not to let Gonzales
drive the truck, because Preston was aware that Gonzales had
problems with his eyesight. 
Elizondo claims that, after Gonzales and Elizondo
returned home, he showered and went to bed to rest his ankle,
which he had hurt that day.  He further states that the keys
to the truck were in his room when he went to bed.  Gonzales,
however, claims that Elizondo gave him the keys to the truck
later that night so that Gonzales could get them some food.
Elizondo denies this; he claims that Gonzales must have taken
the keys to the truck while he slept.  Regardless of how he
1071215
After taking her deposition, the Howards agreed to
4
dismiss Rachel as a defendant.
4
got the keys, Gonzales subsequently left in the truck and was
involved in the accident with the Howards.
On March 23, 2007, the Howards sued Gonzales, Preston and
Rachel Thompson, Perry Thompson, and SAPS in the Mobile
Circuit Court, asserting claims of negligence and wantonness.4
On December 12, 2007, Allstate filed a motion to intervene in
the case, noting that it had issued an automobile-insurance
policy to Preston on the truck involved in the accident and
that there were outstanding issues regarding coverage for the
accident with the Howards.  Allstate maintained that there was
no coverage for the accident because, it argued, Gonzales was
not an insured person under the policy.
Between December 17, 2007, and January 15, 2008, Preston,
Perry, SAPS, and Allstate all moved separately for a summary
judgment, arguing that Gonzales was not acting as an agent or
employee of Preston or SAPS at the time of the accident and
that nobody had given Gonzales permission or authorization to
use the truck on the date of the accident; the Howards opposed
the motions.  On February 13, 2008, the Howards amended their
complaint to assert additional negligence and wantonness
1071215
5
claims and to add Elizondo as a defendant, arguing that he was
an agent of Preston, Perry, and/or SAPS and that he had
negligently or wantonly either entrusted Gonzales with the
truck or failed to secure the keys to the truck.  
On March 7, 2008, the trial court granted the pending
summary-judgment motions and dismissed those defendants from
the case.  They subsequently moved the trial court to make
those judgments final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.,
and, on May 23, 2008, over the Howards' objection,  the trial
court granted those motions and entered an order making the
previously entered summary judgments final.  On May 23, 2008,
the Howards filed their notice of appeal to this Court.
II.
"This Court looks with some disfavor upon
certifications under Rule 54(b).
"'It 
bears 
repeating, 
here, 
that
"'[c]ertifications under Rule 54(b) should
be entered only in exceptional cases and
should not be entered routinely.'"  State
v. Lawhorn, 830 So. 2d 720, 725 (Ala. 2002)
(quoting Baker v. Bennett, 644 So. 2d 901,
903 (Ala. 1994), citing in turn Branch v.
SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So. 2d
1373 (Ala. 1987)).  "'"Appellate review in
a piecemeal fashion is not favored."'"
Goldome Credit Corp. [v. Player, 869 So. 2d
1146, 1148 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003)] (quoting
Harper 
Sales 
Co. 
v. 
Brown, 
Stagner,
1071215
6
Richardson, Inc., 742 So. 2d 190, 192 (Ala.
Civ. App. 1999), quoting in turn Brown v.
Whitaker Contracting Corp., 681 So. 2d 226,
229 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996)) (emphasis
added).'
"Dzwonkowski v. Sonitrol of Mobile, Inc., 892 So. 2d
354, 
363 
(Ala. 
2004). 
 
Also, 
a 
Rule 
54(b)
certification should not be entered if the issues in
the claim being certified and a claim that will
remain pending in the trial court '"are so closely
intertwined that separate adjudication would pose an
unreasonable 
risk 
of 
inconsistent 
results."'
Clarke-Mobile Counties Gas Dist. v. Prior Energy
Corp., 834 So. 2d 88, 95 (Ala. 2002) (quoting Branch
v. SouthTrust Bank of Dothan, N.A., 514 So. 2d 1373,
1374 (Ala. 1987))."
Schlarb v. Lee, 955 So. 2d 418, 419-20 (Ala. 2006).  In the
instant case, the trial court certified as final the judgments
entered in favor of Preston, Perry, SAPS, and Allstate while
the claims against Gonzales and the claims made against
Elizondo, asserted after the other defendants had moved for
summary judgments, remained pending.  The claims against
Gonzales specifically alleged that he was acting in the line
and scope of his employment with Preston and SAPS at the time
of the accident; the claims against Elizondo specifically
alleged that "at all material times"  Elizondo was acting as
an agent, servant, or employee for Preston, Perry, and SAPS.
It would accordingly be contrary to the interests of justice
1071215
7
to adjudicate these remaining claims against Gonzales and
Elizondo separately from the claims against the other
defendants; the common issues are intertwined.  We therefore
conclude that the trial court exceeded its discretion in
certifying the summary judgments against Preston, Perry, SAPS,
and Allstate as final.  Because "[a] nonfinal judgment will
not support an appeal," Dzwonkowski v. Sonitrol of Mobile,
Inc., 892 So. 2d 354, 363 (Ala. 2004), the Howards' appeal
must be dismissed. 
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Cobb, C.J., and Lyons, Bolin, and Murdock, JJ., concur.