Title: Harris v. Dubai Truck Lines, Inc.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1200426
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: August 20, 2021

Rel: August 20, 2021
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
SPECIAL TERM, 2021
____________________
1200426
____________________
Dwayne Lavan Harris
v.
Dubai Truck Lines, Inc.
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
(CV-20-902537)
SELLERS, Justice.
Dwayne Lavan Harris appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit
Court dismissing his counterclaim against Dubai Truck Lines, Inc.,
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P.  We reverse and remand.
1200426
Facts 
  
On February 18, 2018,  three vehicles were involved in an accident 
in Jefferson County:  a vehicle owned by Dubai and driven by Jose
Martinez, one of Dubai's employees; a vehicle driven by Harris; and a
vehicle driven by Annika Schaefer.  Schaefer's vehicle was insured by
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.  On February 28,
2019, Schaefer and State Farm, as subrogee of Schaefer (hereinafter
referred to collectively as "the State Farm plaintiffs") sued Dubai and
Martinez.  According to Dubai, it was not served with the complaint until
June 2020, after the expiration of the applicable two-year statute-of-
limitations period.     
On August 7, 2020, Dubai filed an answer denying all liability for
the accident and adding Harris as a third-party defendant pursuant to
Rule 14, Ala. R. Civ. P.  Dubai specifically impleaded Harris to allege that
Harris's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident.  On
November 13, 2020,  Harris filed a counterclaim against Dubai, alleging
that Martinez, Dubai's employee, had been negligent and/or wanton in
causing the accident, that Harris had suffered injuries as a result of the
2
1200426
accident, and that Dubai was vicariously liable for those injuries under
the doctrine of respondeat superior.1
On January 6, 2021, Dubai filed a motion to dismiss the
counterclaim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., alleging that
Harris had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted
because, it asserted, Harris's counterclaim was barred by the applicable
two-year statute of limitations.  Harris filed a response in opposition to
the motion to dismiss, arguing that, because his counterclaim was
compulsory, it was not subject to the statute-of-limitations defense.  Dubai
then filed a reply stating generally that it had impleaded Harris "under
a theory of contribution and/or indemnity" and that its claim for
contribution and/or indemnity "sound[ed] in contract."  Following a
hearing, the circuit court entered an order granting Dubai's motion to
dismiss.  In that same order, the circuit court dismissed Dubai's third-
1Harris asserts that, following the accident, he hired an attorney to
sue Dubai for the injuries he allegedly suffered as a result of the accident.
However, he states that, in July 2020, after the applicable limitations
period had expired, he learned that his attorney had died without having
filed a complaint; thus, Harris says, the filing of the third-party complaint
revived his right to assert a claim against Dubai.  
3
1200426
party complaint with prejudice, without stating a reason for doing so.
Thereafter, the State Farm plaintiffs and Dubai entered into a joint
stipulation of dismissal; based on that stipulation, the circuit court
entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice.  This appeal
followed.  
  Standard of Review
This Court reviews a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P.,
de novo.   Hendrix v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. of the River Valley, [Ms.
1190107, Sept. 18, 2020] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala.  2020).  A dismissal for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is warranted only
when the allegations of the complaint or, in this case, the counterclaim,
viewed most strongly in favor of the pleader, demonstrate that the pleader
can prove no set of facts that would entitle the pleader to relief. 
Mikkelsen v. Salama, 619 So. 2d 1382 (Ala. 1993).  
Discussion
  
On appeal, Harris argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing
his counterclaim because, he says, the counterclaim is compulsory in
nature and, thus, not subject to the statute-of-limitations defense raised
4
1200426
by Dubai in its motion to dismiss.   We agree.  A counterclaim is
compulsory if, among other things not relevant to this appeal,  it "arises
out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
opposing party's claim." Rule 13(a), Ala. R. Civ. P.; see also Committee
Comments on 1973 Adoption of Rule 13  ("A counterclaim is compulsory if
there is any logical relation of any sort between the original claim and the
counterclaim."). In this case, the counterclaim is unquestionably
compulsory because the same operative facts, i.e., the circumstances of the
February 2018 accident, serve as the basis of both the third-party
complaint and the counterclaim.  Under Alabama law, "[c]ompulsory
counterclaims for money damages are not subject to statutes of limitations
[defenses]."  Romar Dev. Co. v. Gulf View Mgmt. Corp., 644 So. 2d 462, 473
(Ala. 1994).   Thus, to the extent that the circuit court dismissed the
counterclaim based on statute-of-limitations grounds, it erred in doing so. 
In its appellate brief, Dubai contends that it is irrelevant whether the
counterclaim is compulsory because, it says, its third-party complaint was
a legally impermissible attempt under Alabama law to seek indemnity or
contribution from Harris, a joint tortfeasor.  If in the third-party complaint
5
1200426
Dubai, as an alleged tortfeasor, sought only to obtain contribution or
indemnity from Harris, then the circuit court did not err in granting the
motion to dismiss because, under those circumstances, Dubai could prove
no set of facts in support of a claim that would entitle it to relief.  
In Alabama, third-party practice is governed by Rule 14, Ala. R. Civ.
P., which is entirely procedural in nature; the rule permits a defendant, as
a third-party plaintiff, to cause a summons and complaint to be served
"upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to the
third-party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against the third-
party plaintiff."  Rule 14(a).  Because Rule 14 is merely procedural, it does
not authorize a third-party plaintiff  to assert a claim that would otherwise
be impermissible if it was asserted in a separate,  independent action. Rule
14, then, cannot be used to assert a cause of action that would otherwise
be prohibited.  It is well settled that Alabama law does not permit
contribution among joint tortfeasors and that, subject to limited
exceptions, joint tortfeasors are not entitled to indemnity from one
another.   Ex parte Stenum Hosp., 81 So. 3d 314 (Ala. 2011); see also 
Sherman Concrete Pipe Mach., Inc. v. Gadsden Concrete & Metal Pipe Co.,
6
1200426
335 So. 2d 125, 127 (Ala. 1976) ("Contribution ... distributes the loss
equally among all tortfeasors; indemnity seeks to transfer the entire loss
of one tortfeasor to another who, in equity and justice[,] should bear it."). 
Rule 14 is simply not available to assert claims for indemnity and/or
contribution from a joint tortfeasor. 
Accordingly, we must consider the specific allegations of the third-
party complaint and whether those allegations impermissibly stated a
claim for either contribution or indemnity from a joint tortfeasor.   Dubai's
third-party complaint asserted, in pertinent part:
"[6]. On February 11, 2018, on Interstate-59 in Jefferson
County, Alabama, Birmingham Division,  Harris negligently
caused or allowed the motor vehicle being driven by him, or the
motor vehicle under his control, to collide with [the] motor
vehicle owned by Dubai, eventually colliding with the vehicle
occupied by State Farm's insured.
"7.  Pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 14, Dubai asserts that
Harris is or may be [liable] to Dubai for all or part of State
Farm's claim against Dubai and/or its driver, Jose R. Martinez.
"....
"9.  As a proximate consequence of Harris'[s] negligence,
State Farm's insured was caused to suffer injuries and
damages as set forth in State Farm's Complaint.
7
1200426
"WHEREFORE, Dubai demands judgment against Harris
[who] is or may be liable to Dubai for all or part of State Farm's
claim against Dubai and/or its driver, Jose R. Martinez, in an
amount as determined by a ... jury." 
Contrary to Dubai's argument, its third-party complaint did not state
a cause of action for either indemnity or contribution.  Regarding
contribution, there were no allegations of joint liability between Dubai and
Harris. The third-party complaint did not allege that Martinez, Dubai's
employee, had participated in causing the accident or that Dubai was
vicariously liable for the acts of Martinez and, therefore, was jointly and
severally liable with Harris for the amount of damages claimed by the
State Farm plaintiffs.  Rather, in its answer to the complaint, Dubai
denied any and all allegations of wrongdoing in connection with the
accident, and, in its third-party complaint, Dubai alleged that Harris had
caused the accident by negligently allowing his vehicle to collide with
Dubai's vehicle and, eventually, with the vehicle occupied by Schaefer,
State Farm's insured. The third-party complaint also did not set forth any
factual allegations designating any basis for a right to indemnity. 
Although, in its reply to Harris's response to its motion to dismiss, Dubai
8
1200426
stated that its claim for indemnity sounded in contract, there is simply no
allegation of a right to indemnity, flowing from a contract or otherwise, in
the third-party complaint itself.  Accordingly, there was nothing in Dubai's
third-party complaint indicating that it was seeking contribution or
indemnity from Harris.  And, because Harris's counterclaim was
compulsory, it was not subject to a statute-of-limitations defense. Thus,
there was no basis for the circuit court to dismiss Harris's counterclaim
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 
Conclusion
The order of the circuit court granting Dubai's motion to dismiss the
counterclaim filed by Harris is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that
court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Bolin and Stewart, JJ., concur.
Parker, C.J., concurs in part and concurs in the result. 
Wise, J., concurs in the result.
9
1200426
PARKER, Chief Justice (concurring in part and concurring in the result).
I agree that Dwayne Lavan Harris's counterclaim against Dubai
Truck Lines, Inc. ("Dubai"), was not barred by the statute of limitations.
However, to the extent that the main opinion implies that the viability of
Harris's counterclaim also depended on Dubai's third-party complaint
having stated a valid cause of action, I disagree. As explained in the main
opinion, Harris's counterclaim was compulsory. And "dismissal of a
plaintiff's action will not preclude the defendant from proceeding with an
existing compulsory counterclaim." Vincent v. F. Hood Craddock Mem'l
Clinic, 482 So. 2d 270, 273 (Ala. 1985); see 20 Am. Jur. 2d Counterclaim,
Recoupment, Etc. § 96 (2015) ("If an independent jurisdictional basis exists
for the counterclaim, ... the court may determine the merits of the
counterclaim despite dismissal of the primary claim ....");  80 C.J.S. Set-off
and Counterclaim § 18 (2010) ("[I]f there is an independent jurisdictional
basis for a counterclaim ..., it is sustainable without regard to what
happens to the original complaint."); cf. Rule 13(i), Ala. R. Civ. P. ("If the
court orders separate trials ..., judgment on a counterclaim ... may be
rendered ..., even if the claims of the opposing party have been dismissed
10
1200426
...."); Smith v. Cowart, 68 So. 3d 802, 806 (Ala. 2011) (stating that
defendants' counterclaims remained pending after plaintiffs' claims were
dismissed). Therefore, the viability of Harris's counterclaim did not depend
on the validity of Dubai's claim.
11