Opinion ID: 1656301
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence of Misrepresentation

Text: Cochran first contends that he is entitled to a JML because, he says, the Wards failed to present sufficient evidence indicating that A-1 installer Todd Johnson was not factory-trained or fully qualified to install the metal-roofing system on their house. As noted previously, Cochran had represented to the Wards that A-1 installers were factory-trained and fully qualified to install the metal-roofing system. When reviewing a ruling on a motion for a JML, this Court uses the same standard the trial court used initially in granting or denying the motion. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. v. Crawford, 689 So.2d 3 (Ala.1997). Regarding questions of fact, the ultimate issue is whether the nonmovant has presented sufficient evidence to allow the case or issue to be submitted to the jury for a factual resolution. Carter v. Henderson, 598 So.2d 1350 (Ala.1992). In an action filed after June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present substantial evidence to withstand a motion for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; and West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989). A reviewing court must determine whether the party who bears the burden of proof has produced substantial evidence creating a factual dispute requiring resolution by the jury. Carter, 598 So.2d at 1353. In reviewing a ruling on a motion for a JML, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and entertains such reasonable inferences as the jury would have been free to draw. Id. In order to withstand a motion for a JML against their claim of fraudulent misrepresentation, the Wards were required to present substantial evidence indicating (1) that Cochran misrepresented to them that Todd Johnson was factory-trained and fully qualified to install the metal-roofing system on their house, (2) that Cochran did so willfully to deceive, recklessly without knowledge, or mistakenly, and (3) that the Wards suffered damage as a proximate consequence of their reliance on his misrepresentation. Ex parte Alfa Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 742 So.2d 1237 (Ala.1999). In the alternative, the Wards may show that Cochran's failure to disclose, or suppression of, a material fact, rather than an affirmative misrepresentation, induced the reliance and proximately caused their damage. Id. The evidence at trial relating to whether Todd Johnson was factory-trained or fully qualified to install the metal roof was conflicting. Classic Products, Inc., manufactured the metal shingles used on the Wards' house; it also provided its suppliers, including A-1, with hands-on training in installing the shingles. At trial, the Wards presented the deposition testimony of Todd Eugene Miller, the president of Classic Products, as well as Jeffery Mescher, the installation-training technician for Classic Products. The jury heard the following deposition testimony of Miller: Q. Okay. Has Classic [Products] ever, at any time, provided any training to Dan Irving, Sr.? A. Yes. Dan Irving was present for a training session we ran in New Orleans once upon a time. . . . . Q. Okay. Has Classic [Products] ever provided any training to Todd Johnson? A. Not to our knowledge.  (Emphasis added.) The jury heard also heard the following deposition testimony of Mescher: Q. How many people have you trained on the installation of Classic's products, any judgment? A. Probably anywhere from 250 to 350 I would suspect. Q. And is that a hands-on type of training? A. Yes, it is. Q. Where the product is actually installed? A. Correct. . . . . Q. How many different statesor what different states have you given training in? A. All of them except for four in the Unitedin the 50. Q. So you've given training in 46 states? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, when customers have complaints or questions about a Classic [Products] roofing system, do you sometimes go inspect that out in the field? A. I have in the past, yes. . . . . Q. Now, have you been to the home of Conrad Ward and June Ward in Elmore County? A. Yes. . . . . Q. I'm sorry. What is the date you were at the Wards' home? . . . . A. Right. It was May 9, 2003. . . . . Q. And did you find any problems in the installation? A. Well, there were some things thatthat were brought to my attention as far as being considered not necessarily good roofing practice. . . . . Q. Now, if A-1 Metals' installers had received any training from Classic [Products], would you have been the person responsible for providing that training? A. Yes, I was. . . . . Q. All right. Now, did you ever provide any type of training to Dan Irving, Sr.? A. Sometime in the past, there was a training class held in New Orleans that Dan was present at. . . . . Q. Have you ever provided any training to Todd Johnson? A. I don't recall his name in any of the [training sessions], no, sir.  (Emphasis added.) Cochran, on the other hand, argues that Todd Johnson was factory-trained and fully qualified to install the roof. Herman Cline, the president of A-1 when the metal roof was installed on the Wards' house, testified that Todd Johnson was trained by Jeffery Mescher of Classic Products over a two-day period in Odenville, Alabama. Cline testified as follows: Q. You're sure [Todd Johnson] was there? A. Yes. Q. He is not mentioned in the report, is he? A. He is not mentioned. But there are several of them that was there. Q. Now, the report says that about twenty people showed up for first day and about half that many showed up the second day; is that right? A. That's what it says, yes, sir. Q. Were you there both days? A. I was there, yes, sir. Q. Both days? A. Yeah. Q. Todd Johnson, was he one of the ones that came the first day but not the second day? . . . . A. As far as I remember, he was there both days. Q. You're sure of that? A. I'm not sure, but I say he was there. . . . . Q. You cannot say under oath that Todd Johnson had ever previously installed the type of shingle he was putting on the Ward home; is that true? A. I couldn't say that because I really don't know.... (Emphasis added.) In essence, Cline could not state for certain that Todd Johnson was present for the entire two-day training session held by Classic Products, thereby casting doubt on whether Johnson was fully qualified to install the metal roof in question. Cline also could not state with any certainty that Todd Johnson had ever installed the type of metal roof in question. Cline further stated in his affidavit that he had gone to the Wards' house on several different occasions to inspect the roof and that he did not see any problems with the installation of the system. Mescher, on the other hand, contradicted Cline's testimony by providing extensive testimony regarding the faulty manner in which the roof had been installed. Finally, Michael Bazzell, a general contractor familiar with the metal-roofing system manufactured by Classic Products, inspected the roof and testified that the underlayment of the roof was so improperly installed that the roof could not be repaired unless it was first removed. Viewing the evidence, as we must, in a light most favorable to the Wards as the nonmovants, Carter, 598 So.2d at 1353, this Court concludes that the Wards produced substantial evidence from which a jury could infer that Todd Johnson was not factory-trained or fully qualified to install the metal roof. The very fact that the roof was improperly installed creates a factual dispute regarding whether Todd Johnson was fully qualified to install it. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in submitting the case to the jury over Cochran's objection that the Wards failed to present sufficient evidence that Todd Johnson, the installer for A-1, was not factory-trained or fully qualified to install the metal-roofing system. The trial court therefore did not err in denying Cochran's motion for a JML.