Opinion ID: 1715028
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Separate Argument of Capes and Capes Engineering

Text: Finally, we address a separate argument made by only Capes and Capes Engineering. In addition to arguing that the trial court should enter a summary judgment in their favor because the arbitration barred Saad Construction's claims, Capes and Capes Engineering also presented to the trial court Capes's sworn affidavit addressing the merits of Saad Construction's claims. In his affidavit, Capes denied that DPF requested that either he or Capes Engineering form any opinions or recommendations concerning the termination of the Board's contract with Saad Construction. Capes also stated that all services he performed were in accordance with the applicable standard of care. Capes denied that he made any false claims concerning the project, created any false or overstated invoices for the cost of the remedial work, or created or approved any false or fraudulent damage claims associated with the Spanish Fort project. Capes's affidavit was sufficient to shift to Saad Construction the burden to produce substantial evidence in support of its claims against Capes and Capes Engineering. Anderson v. Alabama Reference Labs., 778 So.2d 806, 811 (Ala.2000). Saad Construction presented no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact concerning its claims against Capes or Capes Engineering. In opposing a motion for summary judgment, the nonmovants cannot merely rely on the allegations in their complaint. Rhodes v. General Motors Corp., 621 So.2d 945, 949 (Ala.1993). Thus, Capes and Capes Engineering were entitled to a summary judgment. Smith, 537 So.2d at 463.