Opinion ID: 1608637
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Extracontractual Damages

Text: Simmons argues that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in affirming the partial summary judgment in favor of Congress regarding her recovery of future damages based upon proof that Congress breached its contract of insurance. Simmons appealed as to this issue because the trial court entered a Rule 54(b) certification relating to its order limiting the scope of allowable compensatory damages on her breach-of-contract claim. However, Rule 54(b) does not contemplate an order purporting to make final an order disposing of only part of a claim. Ex parte Kimberly-Clark Corp., [Ms. 1990075, June 9, 2000]. [] Rule 54(b) applies only to entire claims, not to orders relating to the recoverability of some, but not all, of the damages a party may be seeking as the result of a claim. Haynes v. Alfa Fin. Corp., 730 So.2d 178 (Ala.1999). As we stated in Haynes, for a Rule 54(b) certification of finality to be effective, it must fully adjudicate at least one claim or fully dispose of the claims as they relate to at least one party. Id. at 181. Either of the parties could have sought permission to appeal this interlocutory order, pursuant to Rule 5, Ala.R.App.P., but neither did so. The partial summary judgment on the question of damages is an interlocutory order that is subject to revision at any time and therefore is not appealable. Rule 54(b). Therefore, the Court of Civil Appeals could not affirm that order; that portion of its judgment purporting to affirm that interlocutory order must be vacated.