Case Title: Utilities Board of the City of Opp v. Shuler Brothers, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1111558

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2013-06-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 
06/21/2013 
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 Reporter. 
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 
Reporter of Decisions, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r 
Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 
((334) 
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 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 be 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 Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 
1111558 
U t i l i t i e s Board of 
the 
C i t y of 
Opp 
v. 
Shuler Brothers, 
Inc. 
Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-12-0024) 
PER CURIAM. 
The 
U t i l i t i e s Board o f 
t h e 
C i t y o f 
Opp ("the U t i l i t i e s 
B o a r d " ) , t h e t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t below, a p p e a l s 
from t h e 
Houston 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t ' s August 9, 2012, 
o r d e r d e n y i n g i t s 
motion t o d i s m i s s , on s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s 
grounds, t h e 
1111558 
t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t 
f i l e d a g a i n s t i t 
by S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s , 
Inc. 
We a f f i r m i n p a r t , r e v e r s e i n p a r t , and remand. 
F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y 
On J a n u a r y 18, 2012, Alabama E l e c t r i c Company, I n c . 
o f 
Dothan ("AEC") 
f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t 
a g a i n s t S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s , 
w h i c h owns and o p e r a t e s a w o o d - c h i p p i n g o p e r a t i o n . 
I n t h e 
c o m p l a i n t , AEC s t a t e d c l a i m s s e e k i n g r e c o v e r y f o r 
work and 
l a b o r 
done and a l l e g i n g 
b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t 
a f t e r 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s r e f u s e d t o 
pay an i n v o i c e f o r 
r e p a i r s AEC had 
made t o 
S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ' c h i p p e r motor. 
On March 23, 2012, S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s 
f i l e d an answer t o t h e c o m p l a i n t and a c o u n t e r c l a i m 
a l l e g i n g n e g l i g e n c e and s e e k i n g r e c o v e r y f o r l o s t income. 
On March 27, 2012, S h u l e r B r o t h e r s 
f i l e d a t h i r d - p a r t y 
c o m p l a i n t 
a g a i n s t t h e U t i l i t i e s B o a r d s e e k i n g r e c o v e r y f o r 
l o s s o f income and $145,545 f o r 
r e p a i r s t o t h e c h i p p e r motor. 
In t h e t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t , S h u l e r B r o t h e r s a l l e g e d t h a t , 
i n 
December 2009, i t c o n t a c t e d AEC and asked i t 
t o remove and 
r e p a i r a l a r g e c h i p p e r motor t h a t had r e c e n t l y f a i l e d . 
AEC 
p e r f o r m e d t h e r e q u e s t e d r e p a i r work, r e i n s t a l l e d t h e 
motor on 
J a n u a r y 20, 2010, and s u b m i t t e d an i n v o i c e f o r 
$75,000, w h i c h 
S h u l e r B r o t h e r s p r o m p t l y p a i d . 
2 
1111558 
S h u l e r B r o t h e r s a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t , on o r about 
F e b r u a r y 
22, 2010, 
t h e 
motor s u f f e r e d a n o t h e r f a i l u r e , and i t asked AEC 
to 
r e p a i r 
i t . 
AEC p e r f o r m e d t h e r e q u e s t e d 
r e p a i r 
work, 
r e i n s t a l l e d t h e motor a t S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ' 
f a c i l i t y on March 
11, 2010, and a t t e m p t e d t o r e s t a r t 
i t . 
However, 
i m m e d i a t e l y 
a f t e r i t 
was r e s t a r t e d , t h e 
motor s u f f e r e d what appeared t o 
be 
the same f a i l u r e as b e f o r e , and S h u l e r B r o t h e r s asked AEC t o 
r e p a i r i t , w h i c h AEC d i d . 
A c c o r d i n g t o p a r a g r a p h 8 o f S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ' t h i r d - p a r t y 
c o m p l a i n t : 
"[O]n March 23, 2010, [ A E C ] r e i n s t a l l e d t h e motor 
and, 
d u r i n g s t a r t - u p , was f o r c e d t o shut i t 
down 
b e f o r e t h e engine 
f a i l e d a g a i n . 
[ S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ] 
c o n t a c t e d t h e T h i r d - P a r t y Defendant, t h e U t i l i t i e s 
B o a r d o f t h e C i t y o f Opp, ... t o i n v e s t i g a t e 
t h e 
i n c o m i n g 
l i n e 
problem. 
[ T ] h e l i n e m a n 
from t h e 
[ U t i l i t i e s B o a r d ] d i s c o v e r e d and r e p l a c e d '3 c r i m p e d 
c o n n e c t o r s ' on t h e i n c o m i n g 
s i d e o f t h e meter and 
p o l e t h a t were l o o s e , c r a c k e d and showing s i g n s o f 
r e c e n t and o l d 
a r c i n g damage." 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s 
a l l e g e d t h a t t h e U t i l i t i e s 
Board was 
n e g l i g e n t i n m a i n t a i n i n g t h e power l i n e s g o i n g 
i n t o 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s ' 
f a c i l i t y . 
I t a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t i t was f o r e s e e a b l e 
t h a t , i f 
t h e c h i p p e r motor f a i l e d , S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ' b u s i n e s s 
would be shut down and S h u l e r B r o t h e r s would l o s e income as a 
r e s u l t . 
T h e r e f o r e , i t 
a l l e g e d t h a t t h e U t i l i t i e s B o a r d owed 
3 
1111558 
i t f o r 
t h e c o s t o f t h e r e p a i r s AEC had sued i t 
f o r . 
F i n a l l y , 
S h u l e r B r o t h e r s a l l e g e d t h a t i t 
d i d 
n o t d i s c o v e r t h e U t i l i t i e s 
Board's n e g l i g e n c e u n t i l i t 
was s e r v e d w i t h t h e c o m p l a i n t by 
AEC.
1 
On A p r i l 30, 2012, t h e U t i l i t i e s B o a r d f i l e d a motion t o 
d i s m i s s the t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t on 
s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s 
grounds 
p u r s u a n t 
t o 
Rule 
1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , 
A l a . R. 
C i v . P. 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , 
i t a s s e r t e d 
t h a t the n e g l i g e n c e 
c l a i m was 
governed by t h e two-year s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s found i n 
§ 6¬
2-38, 
A l a . Code 1975. 
I t a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t , even though 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s 
s u g g e s t e d 
t h a t i t d i d n o t d i s c o v e r the 
U t i l i t i e s Board's a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n c e u n t i l i t 
was s e r v e d w i t h 
the 
c o m p l a i n t 
by 
AEC, 
p a r a g r a p h 
8 o f t h e 
t h i r d - p a r t y 
c o m p l a i n t , 
q u o t e d above, 
e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s 
s h o u l d have been aware o f t h e U t i l i t i e s 
Board's 
a l l e g e d 
n e g l i g e n c e 
as 
e a r l y 
as March 23, 2010. 
T h e r e f o r e , 
the 
U t i l i t i e s Board a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t , w h i c h 
was f i l e d on March 27, 2012, was b a r r e d by t h e a p p l i c a b l e 
two-
year s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s and s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d . 
1The 
f a c t s 
a l l e g e d i n AEC's 
c o m p l a i n t 
a g a i n s t 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s r e g a r d i n g t h e damage and t h e r e p a i r s t o t h e c h i p p e r 
motor a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r t o t h e f a c t s a l l e g e d i n S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s ' t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e U t i l i t i e s 
Board. 
4 
1111558 
On June 6, 2012, S h u l e r B r o t h e r s , w h i c h was r e p r e s e n t e d 
by new c o u n s e l , amended i t s t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t t o add a 
c l a i m a l l e g i n g b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t . I t a l l e g e d : 
" [ S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s ] 
a v e r s 
t h a t 
a 
c o n t r a c t 
e x i s t e d / e x i s t s between t h e [ U t i l i t i e s 
B o a r d ] and 
[ S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s ] whereby t h e [ U t i l i t i e s 
B o a r d ] 
had/has t h e d u t y t o p r o v i d e e l e c t r i c a l 
p o w e r / s e r v i c e 
i n a manner c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s a f e and p r o p e r 
o p e r a t i o n 
o f 
[ S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s ' ] 
m a n u f a c t u r i n g 
f a c i l i t y as c o n t r a c t e d . 
S a i d c o n t r a c t e x i s t s by 
v i r t u e o f t h e [ U t i l i t i e s 
B o a r d ] u n d e r t a k i n g t h e 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o p r o v i d e 
e l e c t r i c a l 
p o w e r / s e r v i c e 
t o [ S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ' ] f a c i l i t y and t h e t i m e l y and 
c o n s i s t e n t payments made by [ S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ] t o 
t h e 
[ U t i l i t i e s 
B o a r d ] 
f o r 
t h e 
e l e c t r i c a l 
power 
consumed." 
On June 7, 2012, S h u l e r B r o t h e r s 
f i l e d a response i n 
o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e U t i l i t i e s 
Board's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e 
t h i r d - p a r t y 
c o m p l a i n t . 
I t argued 
t h a t , even 
though i t 
i n c l u d e d 
a l l e g a t i o n s i n i t s 
c o m p l a i n t 
about t h e 
U t i l i t i e s 
Board's r e p l a c i n g "3 c r i m p e d c o n n e c t o r s , " i t 
d i d 
n o t know a t 
t h a t time t h a t t h e U t i l i t i e s Board's n e g l i g e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e 
c o n d i t i o n o f t h e power 
l i n e 
caused t h e c h i p p e r motor t o 
m a l f u n c t i o n . 
S h u l e r B r o t h e r s a l s o argued t h a t , even when 
i t 
f i l e d 
i t s c o u n t e r c l a i m on March 23, 2012, i t 
d i d not know 
whether t h e 
damage i t s u f f e r e d was caused by t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f 
AEC o r o f t h e U t i l i t i e s Board. 
T h e r e f o r e , 
c i t i n g Desouza v. 
5 
1111558 
L a u d e r d a l e , 
928 So. 2d 1035 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
2005), i t argued 
t h a t t h e r e were genuine i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l as f a c t t o when i t s 
i n j u r y was 
f i r s t d i s c o v e r e d and t h a t t h o s e i s s u e s p r e c l u d e d a 
judgment on s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s grounds. 
The U t i l i t i e s B o a r d f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s the amended 
t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t , a r g u i n g t h a t , f o r the reasons 
d e t a i l e d 
h e r e i n a f t e r , S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ' c l a i m s were b a r r e d by the 
two-
year s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n § 6 - 2 - 3 8 ( l ) , A l a . 
Code 1975. 
C i t i n g Rumford v. V a l l e y P e s t C o n t r o l , I n c . , 
629 
So. 
2d 
623, 
627 
( A l a . 1993), the 
U t i l i t i e s 
B o a r d a s s e r t e d 
t h a t , " ' [ g ] e n e r a l l y , a cause of a c t i o n f o r i n j u r y or damage t o 
p r o p e r t y a c c r u e s , so as t o s t a r t the r u n n i n g of 
l i m i t a t i o n s , 
on the date of the 
i n j u r y or damage.'" 
(Quoting 54 C.J.S. 
L i m i t a t i o n s of A c t i o n s § 176 
(1987).) 
A l s o , 
c i t i n g 
S i n g e r  
A s s e t F i n a n c i a l Co. v. C o n n e c t i c u t G e n e r a l L i f e I n s u r a n c e 
Co., 
975 So. 2d 375, 382 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
2007), i t a s s e r t e d t h a t , 
a l t h o u g h S h u l e r B r o t h e r s a t t e m p t e d 
t o a v o i d the 
l i m i t a t i o n s 
b a r by a l l e g i n g t h a t i t d i d not d i s c o v e r the U t i l i t i e s Board's 
n e g l i g e n c e u n t i l i t was 
s e r v e d w i t h the c o m p l a i n t , " t h e r e i s 
no ' d i s c o v e r y r u l e ' f o r n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m s t h a t would t o l l 
the 
r u n n i n g of the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s from the time the cause 
6 
1111558 
of a c t i o n was ' d i s c o v e r e d ' by t h e p l a i n t i f f . " 
R e g a r d i n g t h e 
b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t 
c l a i m , t h e U t i l i t i e s 
B o a r d argued 
t h a t 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s ' 
c l a i m 
sounded i n t o r t , 
r a t h e r 
than i n 
c o n t r a c t , and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e 
two-year l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d 
s e t 
f o r t h i n § 6 - 2 - 3 8 ( l ) , A l a . Code 1975, a p p l i e d . 
The 
U t i l i t i e s Board a s s e r t e d t h a t a l l t h e damage o c c u r r e d on o r 
b e f o r e March 11, 2010, and t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s 
commenced no l a t e r than t h a t d a t e . 
T h e r e f o r e , i t c o n c l u d e d 
t h a t , because S h u l e r B r o t h e r s w a i t e d u n t i l March 27, 2012, 
t o 
f i l e 
i t s t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t 
a g a i n s t i t , i t s c l a i m s were 
b a r r e d by t h e two-year s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . 
A f t e r 
c o n d u c t i n g 
a h e a r i n g 
d u r i n g 
w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s 
p r e s e n t e d 
arguments c o n c e r n i n g 
t h e motion t o d i s m i s s , t h e 
t r i a l c o u r t a c c e p t e d b r i e f s from t h e p a r t i e s . 
T h e r e a f t e r , 
i t 
e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e U t i l i t i e s Board's motion i n 
w h i c h 
i t 
e x p l a i n e d : 
"Because 
f a c t u a l 
i s s u e s remain as t o when 
S h u l e r [ B r o t h e r s ] d i s c o v e r e d t h a t [ i t s ] 
damage[] may be t h e 
r e s u l t o f a c t i o n / i n a c t i o n 
o r conduct by [ t h e U t i l i t i e s B o a r d , ] 
[ i t s ] motion t o d i s m i s s i s ... d e n i e d . " 
The U t i l i t i e s Board 
f i l e d a m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r , which t h e t r i a l c o u r t summarily 
d e n i e d . 
7 
1111558 
The U t i l i t i e s B o a r d asked t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o c e r t i f y i t s 
d e n i a l o f t h e motion t o d i s m i s s f o r 
an a p p e a l by p e r m i s s i o n 
p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5, A l a . R. App. P. 
The t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d 
the r e q u e s t e d c e r t i f i c a t i o n , and t h e U t i l i t i e s B o a r d 
f i l e d a 
p e t i t i o n f o r p e r m i s s i v e a p p e a l i n t h i s C o u r t . 
T h i s C o u r t 
g r a n t e d t h e p e t i t i o n and o r d e r e d answer and b r i e f s . 
S t a n d a r d o f Review 
"'The 
a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w under 
R u l e 
1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) [ , 
A l a . R. 
C i v . P.,] i s 
whether, 
when 
t h e 
a l l e g a t i o n s 
o f t h e 
c o m p l a i n t a r e v i e w e d most s t r o n g l y i n 
t h e 
p l e a d e r ' s 
f a v o r , 
i t appears 
t h a t 
t h e 
p l e a d e r 
c o u l d 
prove 
any 
s e t 
o f 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t would 
e n t i t l e [ i t ] t o 
r e l i e f . 
R a l e y 
v. 
C i t i b a n c 
o f 
A l a b a m a / A n d a l u s i a , 
474 So. 2d 640, 641 
( A l a . 1985); 
H i l l v. F a l l e t t a , 589 So. 2d 
746 
( A l a . C i v . App. 1991) 
. I n making t h i s 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h i s C o u r t does n o t 
c o n s i d e r 
whether 
t h e 
p l a i n t i f f 
w i l l 
u l t i m a t e l y 
p r e v a i l , b u t o n l y whether [ i t ] 
may p o s s i b l y 
p r e v a i l . 
F o n t e n o t v. B r a m l e t t , 470 So. 2d 
669, 671 ( A l a . 1985); R i c e v. U n i t e d 
I n s . 
 
Co. o f A m e r i c a , 465 So. 2d 1100, 1101 ( A l a . 
1984). 
We 
note 
t h a t 
a R u l e 
1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) 
d i s m i s s a l i s p r o p e r o n l y when i t appears 
beyond doubt t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f can prove 
no s e t o f f a c t s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e c l a i m 
t h a t would e n t i t l e t h e p l a i n t i f f t o r e l i e f . 
G a r r e t t v. Hadden, 495 So. 2d 616, 617 
( A l a . 1986); 
H i l l v. K r a f t , I n c . , 
496 So. 
2d 768, 769 ( A l a . 1986).' 
"'Nance v. Matthews, 
622 So. 2d 297, 299 ( A l a . 
1993)." 
8 
1111558 
DGB, LLC v. Hinds, 55 So. 3d 218, 223 ( A l a . 2010). 
"'Inasmuch as t h e i s s u e b e f o r e us i s 
whether the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t c o r r e c t l y d e n i e d a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . 
R. C i v . P., m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , 
" [ t ] h i s 
C o u r t must 
a c c e p t the a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e c o m p l a i n t 
as t r u e . " 
C r e o l a 
Land 
Dev., 
I n c . v. 
Bentbrooke 
Housing, 
 
L.L.C., 828 So. 2d 285, 288 ( A l a . 2002) 
. Moreover, 
as 
t h e d e f e n d a n t s 
sought 
o n l y 
a 
R u l e 
12(b) 
(6) 
d i s m i s s a l 
w i t h o u t 
r e s o r t 
t o 
f a c t s 
s u p p l i e d 
by 
a f f i d a v i t o r o t h e r e v i d e n t i a r y m a t e r i a l o u t s i d e the 
a l l e g a t i o n s of the c o m p l a i n t , and as t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
a c c o r d i n g l y t r e a t e d t h e motion o n l y as what i t 
was, 
a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s and not a motion f o r summary 
judgment 
w i t h 
e v i d e n t i a r y m a t e r i a l s 
o u t s i d e 
the 
a l l e g a t i o n s 
o f t h e 
c o m p l a i n t , 
those 
a l l e g a t i o n s 
t h e m s e l v e s a r e the o n l y p o t e n t i a l source o f f a c t u a l 
s u p p o r t 
f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' 
c l a i m s 
of immunity. 
R u l e 1 2 ( b ) , A l a . 
R. C i v . P.; Mooneyham v. S t a t e Bd.  
of 
C h i r o p r a c t i c Examiners , 
802 So. 2d 200 ( A l a . 
20 
01); G a r r i s v. F e d e r a l Land Bank o f J a c k s o n , 58 
4 
So. 2d 791 ( A l a . 1991); Hales v. F i r s t N a t ' l Bank of 
M o b i l e , 380 So. 2d 797 ( A l a . 
1980).'" 
Ex p a r t e Walker, 97 So. 3d 747, 749-50 ( A l a . 
2012). 
D i s c u s s i o n 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
c e r t i f i e d 
t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n f o r 
p e r m i s s i v e 
a p p e a l : 
"[W]hether t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s 
f o r S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s , 
I n c . ' s n e g l i g e n c e and b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t 
c l a i m s commenced upon d i s c o v e r y of the damage t o i t s 
c h i p p e r motor, or upon t h e d i s c o v e r y t h a t the damage 
may 
have 
r e s u l t e d 
from 
t h e 
a c t i o n / i n a c t i o n o r 
conduct by t h e U t i l i t i e s B o a r d of t h e C i t y o f Opp." 
9 
1111558 
A. 
The 
U t i l i t i e s B o a r d argues t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n 
d e n y i n g 
i t s 
m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s ' 
n e g l i g e n c e 
c l a i m on 
s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s 
grounds. 
I n s u p p o r t , i t 
r e i t e r a t e s i t s 
argument t h a t a cause o f a c t i o n f o r damage 
a c c r u e s , and t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s s t a r t s r u n n i n g , on 
t h e 
date 
t h e damage 
o c c u r s . 
See Rumford, 
s u p r a . 
I t a l s o 
r e i t e r a t e s i t s 
argument t h a t t h e r e i s 
no " d i s c o v e r y r u l e " t h a t 
would 
t o l l t h e r u n n i n g o f t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s on a 
n e g l i g e n c e 
c l a i m . 
See S i n g e r A s s e t , s u p r a . 
The 
U t i l i t i e s 
B o a r d a s s e r t s on a p p e a l , as i t d i d 
below, t h a t a l l 
t h e damage 
o c c u r r e d on o r b e f o r e March 11, 2010, and t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f 
l i m i t a t i o n s s t a r t e d r u n n i n g no l a t e r than t h a t d a t e . 
Because 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s 
w a i t e d 
u n t i l March 27, 2012, t o f i l e i t s 
t h i r d - p a r t y 
c o m p l a i n t , t h e U t i l i t i e s 
B o a r d 
c o n c l u d e s 
t h a t 
S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ' n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m i s b a r r e d by t h e two-year 
s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n § 6 - 2 - 3 8 ( l ) , A l a . 
Code 
1975, and t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g i t s motion t o 
d i s m i s s on t h a t ground. 
S h u l e r B r o t h e r s argues t h a t i t s n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m a g a i n s t 
the U t i l i t i e s B o a r d i s 
n o t b a r r e d by t h e two-year s t a t u t e o f 
10 
1111558 
l i m i t a t i o n s . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t contends t h a t "an a c t i o n must 
be 
commenced 
w i t h i n 
two 
y e a r s 
of 
the 
d i s c o v e r y 
of 
the 
n e g l i g e n c e or e l s e [the c l a i m s ] are f o r e v e r b a r r e d . " 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s 
a s s e r t s t h a t the 
s t a t u t e of 
l i m i t a t i o n s 
was 
not 
t r i g g e r e d on March 11, 2010, because, i t s a y s , a t t h a t time i t 
l a c k e d knowledge as t o the cause of the damage and d i d not 
know whether the damage t o the c h i p p e r motor was caused by the 
n e g l i g e n c e of AEC 
or the n e g l i g e n c e of the 
U t i l i t i e s 
Board. 
Thus, the g i s t of i t s arguments i s t h a t q u e s t i o n s as t o when 
i t 
f i r s t d i s c o v e r e d the cause of i t s i n j u r y and the p a r t y t h a t 
was 
r e s p o n s i b l e 
f o r 
the 
i n j u r y 
p r e c l u d e d 
a 
judgment 
on 
l i m i t a t i o n s grounds. 
We 
d i s a g r e e . 
"The 
s t a t u t o r y p e r i o d of l i m i t a t i o n s f o r n e g l i g e n c e 
... a c t i o n s , found a t A l a . Code 1975, 
§ 6-2-38, i s 
two 
y e a r s 
from the d a t e 
the 
i n j u r y 
o c c u r r e d . 
... 
There i s , however, no 
' d i s c o v e r y r u l e ' t o 
t o l l 
the 
r u n n i n g of the 
l i m i t a t i o n s 
p e r i o d w i t h r e s p e c t t o 
n e g l i g e n c e 
... a c t i o n s 
" 
Henson v. C e l t i c L i f e I n s . Co., 
621 So. 2d 1268, 
1274 
( A l a . 
1993). 
See 
a l s o Boyce v. Cassese, 
941 
So. 
2d 932, 
946 
n.2 
( A l a . 2006) ("Alabama has no ' d i s c o v e r y r u l e ' w i t h r e s p e c t t o 
n e g l i g e n c e 
... 
a c t i o n s t h a t would 
t o l l 
the 
r u n n i n g 
of 
the 
l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d . " ) ; S i n g e r A s s e t , 975 So. 2d a t 382 ( n o t i n g 
t h a t " t h e r e i s no ' d i s c o v e r y r u l e ' f o r n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m s t h a t 
11 
1111558 
would t o l l the r u n n i n g of the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s from the 
time the cause of a c t i o n was 
' d i s c o v e r e d ' by the 
p l a i n t i f f " ) ; 
and W i l l i a m s v. Norwest F i n . Alabama, I n c . , 723 So. 2d 97, 
104 
( A l a . 
C i v . App. 
1998) 
("Alabama has no 
' d i s c o v e r y r u l e ' 
w i t h 
r e s p e c t t o n e g l i g e n c e 
... a c t i o n s t h a t would t o l l the 
r u n n i n g 
of the l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d . " ) . 
The " d i s c o v e r y r u l e " i n Alabama 
a p p l i e s o n l y t o f r a u d a c t i o n s , see § 6-2-3, A l a . Code 
1975, 
and 
cases 
i n v o l v i n g 
the 
f r a u d u l e n t 
concealment 
of 
the 
e x i s t e n c e of a cause of a c t i o n . 
See DGB, 
LLC v. H i n d s , 
s u p r a . 
In t h i s case, S h u l e r B r o t h e r s s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l e g e d i n i t s 
t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t 
t h a t i t s c h i p p e r motor s u f f e r e d damage 
i n December 2009, on or about F e b r u a r y 22, 2010, 
and on March 
11, 2010. 
I t a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t , a f t e r AEC was 
f o r c e d t o shut 
down the motor on March 23, 2010, 
t o p r e v e n t 
f u r t h e r damage, 
i t c o n t a c t e d the U t i l i t i e s B o a r d t o i n v e s t i g a t e the 
i n c o m i n g -
l i n e p r o b l e m and t h a t the l i n e m e n " d i s c o v e r e d and r e p l a c e d 
'3 
c r i m p e d c o n n e c t o r s ' on the i n c o m i n g s i d e of the meter and p o l e 
t h a t were l o o s e , c r a c k e d and showing s i g n s of r e c e n t and o l d 
a r c i n g damage." 
We 
"must 
a c c e p t 
the 
a l l e g a t i o n s of 
the 
c o m p l a i n t 
as 
t r u e . " 
C r e o l a Land Dev., 
I n c . v. 
Bentbrooke  
Housing, L.L.C., 828 
So. 
2d 285, 
288 
( A l a . 2002) . 
C l e a r l y , 
12 
1111558 
S h u l e r B r o t h e r s knew about t h e 
damage t o t h e c h i p p e r motor, a t 
the l a t e s t , on March 11, 2010. 
S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ' c o n t e n t i o n s 
about i t s l a c k o f knowledge as t o t h e cause o f t h e damage and 
as 
t o 
w h i c h 
p a r t y ' s 
n e g l i g e n c e 
caused 
t h e 
damage 
n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , because t h e r e i s 
no a l l e g a t i o n o r e v i d e n c e o f 
f r a u d u l e n t 
concealment 
i n 
t h i s 
case, 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s ' 
arguments 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 " d i s c o v e r y r u l e " 
are u n a v a i l i n g .
2 A t t h e l a t e s t , t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s 
began t o run on March 11, 2010. 
T h e r e f o r e , S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ' 
n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e U t i l i t i e s Board, which was 
f i l e d 
more than two y e a r s l a t e r on March 27, 2012, i s 
b a r r e d by t h e 
s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s and s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d . 
2 I n i t s b r i e f , 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s 
c i t e s 
cases 
t h a t a r e 
c l e a r l y i n a p p l i c a b l e , i n c l u d i n g t o x i c - s u b s t a n c e - e x p o s u r e 
cases 
and 
e q u i t a b l e - t o l l i n g c a s e s , see, e.g., G a r r e t t v. Raytheon  
Co., 
368 So. 2d 516 ( A l a . 
1979), o v e r r u l e d by G r i f f i n v.  
U n o c a l Corp., 990 So. 2d 291 ( A l a . 2008); a p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n 
t h a t a d d r e s s e d 
q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g d i s c o v e r y o f t h e damage, 
r a t h e r than t h e cause o f t h e damage o r t h e p a r t y r e s p o n s i b l e 
f o r t h e damage, see Desouza v. L a u d e r d a l e , 928 So. 2d 1035 
( A l a . C i v . App. 2005); and a f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t case t h a t 
r e f u t e s i t s arguments by s t a t i n g t h a t a n e g l i g e n c e cause o f 
a c t i o n 
a c c r u e s when t h e i n j u r y 
o c c u r s and f u r t h e r 
s t a t i n g 
t h a t , i n Alabama, t h e d i s c o v e r y r u l e a p p l i e s o n l y t o f r a u d 
a c t i o n s . 
13 
1111558 
B. 
The 
U t i l i t i e s 
B o a r d a l s o argues t h a t the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e r r e d 
i n d e n y i n g 
i t s m o t i o n 
t o 
d i s m i s s 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s ' 
b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m on 
s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s 
grounds. 
The 
U t i l i t i e s B o a r d argues t h a t the c l a i m a l l e g e d by 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s t o be a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m a c t u a l l y sounds i n 
t o r t , t o w h i c h the two-year l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d s e t f o r t h i n § 
6 - 2 - 3 8 ( l ) , A l a . Code 1975, 
a p p l i e s .
3 
We 
d i s a g r e e . 
In 
i t s amended t h i r d - p a r t y 
c o m p l a i n t , 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s 
a l l e g e d : 
" [ S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s ] 
a v e r s 
t h a t 
a 
c o n t r a c t 
e x i s t e d / e x i s t s 
between 
the 
[ U t i l i t i e s 
Board] 
and 
[ S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ] 
whereby the 
[ U t i l i t i e s 
Board] 
had/has the d u t y t o p r o v i d e e l e c t r i c a l 
p o w e r / s e r v i c e 
i n 
a manner c o n s i s t e n t w i t h 
the 
s a f e 
and 
p r o p e r 
o p e r a t i o n 
of 
[ S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s ' ] 
m a n u f a c t u r i n g 
f a c i l i t y 
as 
c o n t r a c t e d . 
S a i d c o n t r a c t e x i s t s 
by 
v i r t u e 
of 
the 
[ U t i l i t i e s 
Board] 
u n d e r t a k i n g 
the 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o p r o v i d e 
e l e c t r i c a l 
p o w e r / s e r v i c e 
to 
[ S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ' ] 
f a c i l i t y and 
the t i m e l y 
and 
c o n s i s t e n t payments made by [ S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ] t o the 
[ U t i l i t i e s 
Board] 
f o r 
the 
e l e c t r i c a l 
power 
consumed." 
3The 
U t i l i t i e s 
B o a r d 
r e l i e s 
p r i m a r i l y 
on some of 
the 
r e a s o n i n g used i n B a i l e y v. L i b e r t y M u t u a l I n s u r a n c e Co., 
451 
So. 2d 279 
( A l a . 1984), t o s u p p o r t i t s argument. However, the 
r e a s o n i n g i n t h a t case and the l i n e of cases upon which i t was 
based were disavowed by 
t h i s C o u r t 
i n B e r r y v. D r u i d 
C i t y  
H o s p i t a l Board, 
333 
So. 
2d 796 
( A l a . 1976), i n which 
t h i s 
C o u r t o v e r r u l e d Smith v. Houston County H o s p i t a l Board, 
287 
A l a . 
705, 255 So. 2d 328 
(1971). 
14 
1111558 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s 
a l s o 
a l l e g e d 
t h a t 
the 
U t i l i t i e s 
Board 
"breached 
t h i s 
c o n t r a c t 
by 
f a i l i n g 
t o 
p r o v i d e 
e l e c t r i c a l 
p o w e r / s e r v i c e i n the manner 
c o n t r a c t e d . " 
"The 
q u e s t i o n 
b e f o r e 
us 
i s 
s i m p l y 
whether 
the 
p l a i n t i f f has s t a t e d a cause of a c t i o n f o r b r e a c h of 
i m p l i e d c o n t r a c t . 
The 
p l a i n t i f f need s t a t e o n l y a 
c l a i m 
f o r 
r e l i e f 
c o n t a i n i n g 
a 
s h o r t 
and 
p l a i n 
s t a t e m e n t of the c l a i m showing t h a t the p l e a d e r 
i s 
e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f and a demand f o r judgment f o r the 
r e l i e f t o which he deems h i m s e l f e n t i t l e d . 
[ A l a . R. 
C i v . 
P.] 
8 ( a ) . " 
B e r r y v. D r u i d C i t y Hosp. Bd., 
333 
So. 
2d 796, 
800-01 ( A l a . 
1976). 
"'An 
i m p l i e d 
c o n t r a c t 
a r i s e s where 
t h e r e are c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o 
the o r d i n a r y c o u r s e of d e a l i n g and common 
u n d e r s t a n d i n g , 
show 
a 
mutual 
i n t e n t 
t o 
c o n t r a c t . 
Such a c o n t r a c t must c o n t a i n a l l 
the elements of an e x p r e s s c o n t r a c t , w h i c h 
r e s t s on c o n s e n t , and 
i s t o e v e r y i n t e n t 
and 
purpose 
an 
agreement 
between 
the 
p a r t i e s , 
and 
i t cannot be 
found t o 
e x i s t 
u n l e s s a c o n t r a c t s t a t u s i s shown.'" 
R a d i o l o g y 
A s s o c s . , P.A. 
v. S t . C l a i r Timber Co., 
563 
So. 
2d 
1020, 
1021 
( A l a . 1990) 
( q u o t i n g B r o y l e s v. Brown Eng'g 
Co., 
275 A l a . 35, 38, 151 So. 2d 767, 
770 
(1963)). 
"The manner of 
performance as w e l l as the terms of performance of a c o n t r a c t 
may 
be i m p l i e d from the f a c t s . " 
Watts Homes, I n c . v. 
A l o n z o , 
452 So. 2d 1331, 
1332 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
1984). 
F i n a l l y , 
" ' [ i ] t 
15 
1111558 
i s a g e n e r a l r u l e i n c o n t r a c t s f o r work or s e r v i c e s t h a t 
t h e r e 
i s 
i m p l i e d a d u t y t o p e r f o r m w i t h 
t h a t degree of 
s k i l l 
or 
workmanship w h i c h i s p o s s e s s e d by t h o s e of o r d i n a r y 
s k i l l 
i n 
the 
p a r t i c u l a r 
t r a d e 
f o r w h i c h 
one 
i s employed.'" 
Watts 
 
Homes, 452 
So. 
2d 1332-33 ( q u o t i n g C.P. 
Robbins & A s s o c s . v.  
S t e v e n s , 53 A l a . App. 
432, 
436, 
301 
So. 
2d 196, 
199 
(1974)). 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s 
a l l e g e d t h a t , when the 
a l l e g a t i o n s 
are 
v i e w e d most s t r o n g l y i n S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ' 
f a v o r , t h e r e was 
an 
i m p l i e d c o n t r a c t 
f o r e l e c t r i c a l 
s e r v i c e s from the 
U t i l i t i e s 
Board, 
t h a t 
the 
terms 
of 
the 
c o n t r a c t 
r e q u i r e d 
t h a t 
the 
s e r v i c e s be p r o v i d e d " i n a manner c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the s a f e 
and 
p r o p e r 
o p e r a t i o n 
of 
[ S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s ' ] 
m a n u f a c t u r i n g 
f a c i l i t y , " and t h a t the 
U t i l i t i e s B o a r d f a i l e d t o p e r f o r m i n 
the manner r e q u i r e d under the c o n t r a c t . 
Such a l l e g a t i o n s -¬
of a b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t -- are governed by a s i x - y e a r s t a t u t e 
of l i m i t a t i o n s , and the t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t w i t h r e s p e c t 
t o 
t h i s c l a i m was 
t i m e l y 
f i l e d w i t h i n t h a t l i m i t a t i o n s 
p e r i o d . 
See § 6-2-34(9), A l a . Code 1975. 
T h e r e f o r e , 
the d e n i a l of the 
U t i l i t i e s Board's motion t o d i s m i s s w i t h r e g a r d t o the b r e a c h -
o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m was 
p r o p e r . 
16 
1111558 
C o n c l u s i o n 
For t h e a b o v e - s t a t e d 
r e a s o n s , we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
judgment d e n y i n g t h e U t i l i t i e s 
Board's m o t i o n t o 
d i s m i s s 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s ' 
b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t 
c l a i m ; we 
r e v e r s e t h e 
t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment d e n y i n g t h e U t i l i t i e s Board's motion t o 
d i s m i s s S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ' n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m ; and we remand t h i s 
case f o r 
p r o c e e d i n g s 
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . 
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. 
S t u a r t , 
B o l i n , 
P a r k e r , Murdock, Main, Wise, and B r y a n , 
J J . , 
concur. 
Shaw, J . , 
c o n c u r s 
s p e c i a l l y . 
Moore, C.J., c o n c u r s i n p a r t and d i s s e n t s i n p a r t . 
17 
1111558 
SHAW, J u s t i c e ( c o n c u r r i n g 
s p e c i a l l y ) . 
I concur i n the main o p i n i o n . 
I w r i t e s p e c i a l l y t o make 
two o b s e r v a t i o n s . 
F i r s t , 
S h u l e r B r o t h e r s , I n c . , w h o l l y 
f a i l s 
t o d i s c u s s 
i n i t s b r i e f 
the p r o p e r 
s t a t u t e of 
l i m i t a t i o n s 
a p p l i c a b l e t o i t s b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t 
a c t i o n , and i t does not 
d i s p u t e the U t i l i t i e s Board of the C i t y of Opp's argument t h a t 
S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ' b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t 
c l a i m i s a c t u a l l y a 
t o r t 
c l a i m . 
I note t h a t "we have a d u t y t o a f f i r m the judgment i f 
the 
t r i a l c o u r t i s c o r r e c t f o r any r e a s o n . 
See Ex p a r t e 
CTB, 
 
I n c . , 782 
So. 
2d 
188, 
191 
( A l a . 2000) 
( ' [ T ] h i s 
C o u r t must 
a f f i r m the judgment of the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
i f t h a t judgment i s 
s u p p o r t e d by any 
v a l i d l e g a l ground, even i f t h a t ground 
was 
not 
argued 
b e f o r e 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
or 
t h i s 
C o u r t . ' ) . " 
P a t t e r s o n v. L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 
903 So. 2d 769, 
780 
( A l a . 
2004). 
Second, a l t h o u g h the U t i l i t i e s Board argues t h a t language 
i n 
B a i l e y v. 
L i b e r t y M u t u a l I n s u r a n c e Co., 
451 
So. 
2d 
279 
( A l a . 
1984), 
i n d i c a t e s 
t h a t , 
when 
a 
c o n t r a c t 
does 
not 
e x p r e s s l y 
r e q u i r e 
due 
c a r e 
i n 
the 
a c t 
c o n t r a c t e d 
t o 
be 
p e r f o r m e d , a c l a i m t h a t the 
f a i l u r e t o e x e r c i s e due 
c a r e 
i n 
p e r f o r m i n g 
the a c t sounds i n t o r t and not c o n t r a c t , the a c t u a l 
18 
1111558 
c o n t r a c t a t i s s u e i n B a i l e y e x p r e s s l y d i s c l a i m e d any d u t y of 
due 
c a r e . 
Thus, 
the 
language 
from 
B a i l e y 
c i t e d 
by 
the 
U t i l i t i e s 
Board 
appears 
t o be 
d i c t a . 
The 
main 
o p i n i o n 
c o r r e c t l y 
r e l i e s on the r a t i o n a l e 
s t a t e d i n B e r r y v. 
D r u i d  
C i t y H o s p i t a l Board, 333 So. 2d 796 ( A l a . 1976), and c o n f i r m e d 
i n W r i g h t v. S e a r s , Roebuck & Co., 355 So. 2d 353 ( A l a . 1978); 
H o l l e y v. S t . P a u l F i r e & M a r i n e I n s u r a n c e Co., 396 So. 2d 75 
( A l a . 1981) 
( p l u r a l i t y ) ; 
T a y l o r v. B a p t i s t M e d i c a l C e n t e r ,  
I n c . , 400 So. 2d 369 ( A l a . 
1981); P l a n t a t i o n South Condominium  
A s s ' n , I n c . v. P r o f i l e Management Corp., 842 So. 2d 663 ( A l a . 
C i v . App. 2001); and Watts Homes, I n c . v. A l o n z o , 452 So. 2d 
1331 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
1984), 
w h i c h 
i n d i c a t e s 
t h a t 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s ' c l a i m sounds i n c o n t r a c t and not i n t o r t . 
19 
1111558 
MOORE, C h i e f 
J u s t i c e 
( c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and 
d i s s e n t i n g i n 
p a r t ) . 
I concur i n a f f i r m i n g the 
t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r as t o the 
b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t the U t i l i t i e s B o a r d 
of 
the 
C i t y 
of 
Opp 
by 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s , 
I n c . 
("Shuler 
B r o t h e r s " ) . However, I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t from the 
C o u r t ' s 
d e c i s i o n 
t o 
r e v e r s e 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
o r d e r 
as 
t o 
S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s ' n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m . 
I do not b e l i e v e t h a t S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ' n e g l i g e n c e 
c l a i m 
a c c r u e d b e f o r e S h u l e r B r o t h e r s knew or r e a s o n a b l y s h o u l d have 
known t h a t i t was 
l e g a l l y 
i n j u r e d . 
A r t i c l e 
I , § 10, 
A l a . 
Const. 1901, g u a r a n t e e s " [ t ] h a t no p e r s o n s h a l l be b a r r e d from 
p r o s e c u t i n g or d e f e n d i n g b e f o r e any t r i b u n a l i n t h i s s t a t e , by 
h i m s e l f 
or by 
c o u n s e l , 
any 
c i v i l 
cause 
t o w h i c h he 
i s a 
p a r t y . " S i m i l a r l y , A r t . I , § 13, g u a r a n t e e s " [ t ] h a t a l l c o u r t s 
s h a l l be open; and t h a t e v e r y p e r s o n , f o r any i n j u r y done him, 
i n 
h i s l a n d s , goods, p e r s o n s , 
or r e p u t a t i o n , s h a l l have a 
remedy by due p r o c e s s of law; and r i g h t and j u s t i c e s h a l l 
be 
a d m i n i s t e r e d 
w i t h o u t 
s a l e , 
d e n i a l , 
or 
d e l a y . "
4 
These 
4 T h i s C o u r t has o f t e n c o n s t r u e d § 10 and § 13 
t o g e t h e r . 
See, e.g., 
Ex p a r t e W e t z e l , 243 A l a . 130, 
133, 
8 So. 2d 
824, 
825 
(1942); Quick v. Western Ry. of A l a . , 207 A l a . 376, 
377, 
92 So. 608, 
609 
(1922). 
20 
1111558 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s g u a r a n t e e the r i g h t t o b r i n g a 
c i v i l 
a c t i o n f o r an 
i n j u r y done t o a p e r s o n . But 
how 
can someone 
b r i n g an a c t i o n i f he does not 
r e a l i z e or cannot r e a s o n a b l y 
r e a l i z e t h a t he has been l e g a l l y i n j u r e d ? In my view, t h e n , a 
cause 
of 
a c t i o n 
can 
a c c r u e 
o n l y when 
a p e r s o n knows 
or 
r e a s o n a b l y s h o u l d have known t h a t he has been l e g a l l y i n j u r e d . 
Thus, a s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l as 
a p p l i e d 
under §§ 10 and 
13 i f a cause of a c t i o n t o w h i c h the 
s t a t u t e 
a p p l i e s a c c r u e s when a p a r t y i s i n j u r e d but b e f o r e he knows or 
r e a s o n a b l y s h o u l d have known t h a t he has been l e g a l l y i n j u r e d 
and t h i s a c c r u a l causes h i s a c t i o n t o be b a r r e d .
5 Cf. Payne v.  
Alabama Cemetery A s s ' n , 
413 
So. 
2d 
1067, 
1072 
( A l a . 
1982) 
( h o l d i n g t h a t a cause of a c t i o n f o r n e g l i g e n t 
d e s t r u c t i o n 
of 
b o d i l y remains d i d not a c c r u e u n t i l the p l a i n t i f f 
d i s c o v e r e d 
t h a t 
her mother's remains were not 
i n her 
g r a v e ) ; 
Alabama 
 
Farmers Coop., I n c . v. P r i c e w a t e r h o u s e C o o p e r s , LLP, 
911 So. 
2d 
689, 
694 
( A l a . C i v . App. 2004) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a cause of a c t i o n 
f o r 
n e g l i g e n c e 
a c c r u e d when 
the 
p l a i n t i f f 
d i s c o v e r e d 
the 
5By c o n t r a s t , a s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t does not 
a l l o w 
a 
cause 
of 
a c t i o n 
t o 
a c c r u e 
u n l e s s 
and 
u n t i l 
the 
p a r t y 
d i s c o v e r s 
the i n j u r y i s not u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l under §§ 10 
and 
13. See, 
e.g., 
§ 6-2-3, A l a . Code 1975 
( p r o v i d i n g a 
d i s c o v e r y 
r u l e f o r f r a u d a c t i o n s ) . 
21 
1111558 
i n j u r y ) , r e v e r s e d on o t h e r grounds, Ex p a r t e Alabama Farmers  
Coop., I n c . , 
911 So. 2d 696 ( A l a . 2004). 
In 
t h i s 
case, 
S h u l e r B r o t h e r s a l l e g e s t h a t i t 
d i d 
n o t 
d i s c o v e r t h e U t i l i t i e s Board's n e g l i g e n c e 
u n t i l January 19, 
2012, when i t was s e r v e d w i t h t h e c o m p l a i n t 
f i l e d by Alabama 
E l e c t r i c 
Company, 
I n c . Because 
we 
must 
a c c e p t 
t h e s e 
a l l e g a t i o n s as t r u e i n r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o 
d i s m i s s , I would h o l d t h a t S h u l e r B r o t h e r s ' cause o f a c t i o n 
c o u l d n o t a c c r u e 
u n t i l 
J a n u a r y 
19, 2012. S h u l e r 
B r o t h e r s 
b r o u g h t i t s n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m on March 27, 2012, w e l l w i t h i n 
the two-year s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s ; t h e r e f o r e , I would a f f i r m 
the 
t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r on t h i s c l a i m as w e l l . 
22