Opinion ID: 1863276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Callens's Civil-Conspiracy Claims

Text: Callens claims the summary judgment was improper as to her civil-conspiracy claims. As previously noted, Callens asserted these claims in her individual and representative capacities, seeking damages based on harm she incurred and on the alleged wrongful death of Presley. `A civil conspiracy requires a combination of two or more individuals to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means.' Drill Parts & Serv. Co. v. Joy Mfg. Co., 619 So.2d 1280, 1290 (Ala.1993) (quoting Nelson v. University of Alabama System, 594 So.2d 632, 634 (Ala.1992)). A plaintiff alleging a conspiracy must have a valid underlying cause of action. Id. [A] conspiracy claim must fail if the underlying act itself would not support an action. Triple J Cattle, Inc. v. Chambers, 621 So.2d 1221, 1225 (Ala.1993).
Callens, in her individual capacity, argues that she presented substantial evidence indicating that the defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy to commit fraud, negligence, and wantonness when they withheld information about the cause of Presley's hip injury, telling Callens that Presley had injured her knee. Callens's argument on this issue is devoted exclusively to her claim of fraudulent suppression. We therefore do not address her theories of a civil conspiracy to engage in negligence and wantonness. To prove fraudulent suppression, a plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant had a duty to disclose material facts; (2) that the defendant concealed or failed to disclose those facts; (3) that the concealment or failure to disclose induced the plaintiff to act; and (4) that the defendant's action resulted in harm to the plaintiff. Booker v. United American Ins. Co., 700 So.2d 1333, 1339 n. 10 (Ala.1997). Callens has not shown the materiality of the facts she alleges the defendants suppressed from her. A `material fact' ... is a fact of such a nature as to induce action on the part of the complaining party. Bank of Red Bay v. King, 482 So.2d 274, 282 (Ala.1985). Callens's complaint alleges that, because of the defendants' alleged suppression, she suffered loss or harm because she lost her mother and because, she says, she suffered shame, embarrassment, and extreme mental and emotional upset. Callens did not produce substantial evidence indicating that the defendants suppressed a material fact; she did not show, nor did she allege, that an act or statement of the defendants induced her to act. She also did not allege that her mother would have lived if the defendants had not concealed facts from her or that, but for the alleged concealment, her course of conduct would have been different. In addition, Callens did not show that the defendants' alleged concealment of material facts, or the defendants' alleged actions, resulted in her mother's death. She produced no expert testimony indicating that the defendants' allegedly fraudulent conduct caused Presley's death or caused Callens's alleged embarrassment. [6] We affirm the summary judgment insofar as it related to Callens's claim alleging a conspiracy to engage in fraudulent suppression.
In her representative capacity, Callens alleges that the defendants conspired to commit acts that caused the wrongful death of Presley. This claim must fail, because the trial court entered a summary judgment for the defendants on Callens's wrongful-death claim, on the basis that Callens could not prove causation. (See note 6.) Because Callens did not appeal the summary judgment as it related to her wrongful-death claim, she does not have a valid underlying cause of action to support her conspiracy claim. Triple J Cattle, 621 So.2d at 1225. We affirm the summary judgment insofar as it related to Callens's claim alleging a conspiracy to commit acts resulting in Presley's death.