Title: Earnest v. Pritchett-Moore, Inc.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

401 So. 2d 752 (1981)
James H. EARNEST
v.
PRITCHETT-MOORE, INC., et al.
80-196.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 10, 1981.
*753 Albert G. Lewis, III of Turner, Turner & Turner, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
James J. Jenkins of Phelps, Owens, Jenkins, Gibson & Fowler, Tuscaloosa, for appellees.
BEATTY, Justice.
Appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of all defendants. We affirm.
The complaint alleged fraudulent misrepresentations against all defendants arising out of an attempt to effect an insurance adjustment following collision damage to the plaintiff's vehicle. In Count One plaintiff alleged:
. . . .
The plaintiff claimed $436.00 actual damages and $10,000.00 punitive damages from both Pritchett-Moore and All Risk Insurance Company jointly, and the same amounts from Crawford and Company individually. By amendment the punitive damages claim was increased to $100,000.00. All defendants filed answers. Thereafter the defendants moved for summary judgment: Pritchett-Moore's motion being based upon the pleadings, the plaintiff's deposition, the plaintiff's answers to interrogatories of All Risk and Crawford and Company, and documents produced by the defendants in response to plaintiff's requests for production; All Risk and Crawford and Company relied upon the pleadings, the plaintiff's deposition and the plaintiff's answers to interrogatories. Following a hearing on these motions the trial court granted the motions, and the plaintiff appealed.
Whether summary judgment was proper as to each defendant is the question before us.
It is important to test the evidence before the trial court with the principles of law upon which the plaintiff was relying. Under the allegations of the complaint it is apparent that plaintiff was relying upon Code of 1975, § 6-5-101:
Under this principle there must be (1) a false representation (2) concerning a material existing fact (3) relied upon by the plaintiff (4) who must be damaged as a proximate result. International Resorts, Inc. v. Lambert, Ala., 350 So. 2d 391 (1977) and cases cited.
The evidence establishes that the plaintiff's pick-up truck was damaged by another automobile driven by one Dwayne Richardson. The plaintiff ascertained at the scene that Richardson's insurance agency was Pritchett-Moore, Inc., and that Richardson's agent was one Gragg Robinson. The next morning he went to see Robinson:
*755 The agent had told plaintiff to obtain two estimates; however, he actually obtained three, one each from Campbell's Body Shop, the "Buick place," and Horton's Garage. He delivered two of these to the agent, the Campbell's and Buick estimates. The plaintiff deposed further:
. . . .
Under the evidence of the plaintiff himself it is difficult to establish a misrepresentation of a material fact which induced the plaintiff to act. The agent made no representation that the plaintiff would be paid in any event, only that the insurance company usually paid the lowest estimate. Additionally, the evidence establishes that the moving inducement for the plaintiff's having his truck repaired was not any statement made by the agent but because, at all events, he needed the use of the truck the next weekend. Whether the insurance company was to satisfy his claim or not, he incurred the repair bill with another and *758 different garage on his own terms. The alleged misrepresentation, therefore, did not materially contribute to his damage and was not "of such character that the purchaser would not have consummated the contract [of repairs] had he known the falsity of the statement." Southern Loan & Trust Co. v. Gissendaner, 4 Ala.App. 523, 58 So. 737 (1912), quoting Jordan & Sons v. Pickett, 78 Ala. 331 (1884).
We conclude that summary judgment was appropriately entered for Pritchett-Moore.
The same considerations apply to All Risk. The agent Robinson, from aught that appears, was acting as a conduit for estimates of repair to be transmitted to the appropriate liability carrier. All Risk came into the situation after plaintiff had had his truck repaired. He received a letter from Al Hollingshead, a representative of All Risk, together with a form which plaintiff completed and returned by mail. Plaintiff also telephoned Hollingshead and discussed the accident and the contents of the form. Hollingshead stated to plaintiff in that conversation: "Well, James, if we have any problem, I'll be sure and call you." After that conversation and before any further contact with Hollingshead, plaintiff paid Allen's garage the amount of his repair bill. Later he telephoned Hollingshead again and was told that more paperwork was required. Still later he telephoned Hollingshead and was told that Crawford and Company would handle the adjustment. These communications only revealed that All Risk required additional information, and that Crawford and Company would adjust the claim. All Risk itself made no false representation to the plaintiff and plaintiff acted on none to his damage. Indeed, plaintiff did not act upon any statement made to him by Hollingshead or anyone in the latter's office. And if plaintiff's theory is that Robinson, the agent, was acting for All Risk, we have shown by the evidence adduced that plaintiff acted for reasons personal to himself in having his car repaired, not from anything Robinson represented to him.
Insofar as plaintiff's transaction with Crawford and Company is concerned, plaintiff's evidence is:
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Plaintiff then testified that while he was waiting in the office of Crawford and Company he saw someone outside looking at his truck and when he went outside he discovered that it was an employee of Campbell Body Shop. He telephoned Hollingshead and the latter offered him a settlement of $100.00 which he refused.
None of that evidence produces any inference of a misrepresentation made to plaintiff by any of the Crawford and Company representatives, Poole, Latham or anyone acting for them. Nor did plaintiff himself relate any such misrepresentation. Doubtless plaintiff felt imposed upon by what he obviously considered needless delays; nevertheless he has not furnished evidence of either a misrepresentation by Crawford and Company or his own reliance upon any such misrepresentation. In fact his evidence affirmatively discloses that his alleged injury occurred before he had any contact with Crawford and Company.
The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing that the other party could not recover under any discernible circumstances. Jakob v. First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, Ala., 361 So. 2d 1017 (1978); Folmar v. Montgomery Fair Co., Inc., 293 Ala. 686, 309 So. 2d 818 (1975). Our careful review of the evidence has convinced us that the defendants have met their burden. There was not a scintilla of evidence before the trial court on the elements of misrepresentation by any of these defendants or reliance thereupon by the plaintiff. It follows that the trial court's grant of summary judgment in their favor was proper. That judgment, therefore, must be and is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C. J., and JONES and SHORES, JJ., concur.
MADDOX, J., concurs in the result.