Title: Hamilton v. South Central Bell Telephone Co.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

369 So. 2d 16 (1979)
Patsy HAMILTON
v.
SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY et al.
78-46.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
March 23, 1979.
J. Wm. Thomason, Birmingham, for appellant.
Anita Leslie Miller, Birmingham, for appellees.
BLOODWORTH, Justice.
Hamilton appeals from an order granting South Central Bell's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief. 12(b)(6) ARCP. We reverse.
The original complaint sought damages from South Central Bell and a single fictitious party who had placed harassing phone calls to Hamilton's residence. The basis for the claim against South Central Bell was that the telephone company fraudulently represented to Hamilton that if she would allow the company to place surveillance equipment on her telephone line, the company would work with her to ascertain the identity of the caller and would reveal to her all information discovered. She claimed damages for mental anguish resulting from South Central Bell's failure to reveal the discovered information. The phone company's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss was granted.
Within the ten days allowed by Rule 78, ARCP, Hamilton amended her complaint to add two new counts, viz:
Again, South Central Bell filed a 12(b)(6) motion which was granted. Hamilton appeals only from the order granting the second motion to dismiss.
The sole issue on appeal is whether it is beyond doubt that Hamilton could prove no facts in support of Count B or Count C that would entitle her to relief. *18 This is the accepted standard for granting a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Trabits v. First National Bank of Mobile, 295 Ala. 85, 323 So. 2d 353 (1975).
We conclude that both Count B and Count C state valid claims for relief and that the motion to dismiss should not have been granted.
South Central Bell argues that Count B is bad because no agreement was made to reveal the name of the caller, no one at South Central Bell was authorized to make such a contract, and no consideration was given. These matters are defensive matters requiring proof and are not grounds which will mandate dismissal before a plaintiff has a chance to counter them.
The company contends that Count C is bad because Hamilton requested the investigation and consented to the placement of the surveillance equipment on her line. Hamilton does state in her complaint that she consented to the investigation. However, she alleges that this was a qualified consent induced by false representations on the part of the phone company that they would reveal to her the information gathered through the surveillance. This is an issue upon which Hamilton should be permitted to offer facts to prove, at least at the summary judgment stage. It may be determined that there are no genuine questions of material fact and that South Central Bell is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment would then be appropriate. As it now stands, however, dismissal is premature because it is not beyond doubt that Hamilton could prove no set of facts entitling her to relief.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.