Opinion ID: 77681
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dismissal of Common Law Claims

Text: 28 Finally, Appellants argue that the district court erred by granting summary judgment of their common law claims, which include fraud, breach of good faith and fair dealing, negligence and wantonness, and negligent and wanton supervision. See Compl. ¶¶ 71-100. 8 Appellants allege that these common law claims relate in part to warranty reimbursement and sales incentives, and therefore, fall within the exceptions to the Release. 9 See Appellants Br. 31; Appellants Reply Br. 14. This argument is without merit. 29 The exceptions to the Release are available only for what amounts to reimbursements for warranty services rendered, parts, and incentive or rebate programs. 10 See Evidentiary Submission Filed In Support of Def. KIA Motors Am., Inc.'s Mot. For Partial Summary J. Ex. 7 at 2. Thus, these exceptions do not provide for claims involving tortious conduct. Although these claims are partially based upon KMA's failure to reimburse Appellants for warranty services and incentive programs, the actual legal grounds for relief lie in common law torts. Appellants mistakenly assume that the supporting evidence for their common law claims, which involves the type of conduct exempted under the Release, allows those common law claims to fall under the exceptions to the Release. There is no justification for such an expansive reading of the exceptions section of the Release. The district court properly determined that Appellants' common law claims do not fit within the limited exceptions contained in the Release. It must be noted, however, that the validity of this ruling depends on the Alabama Supreme Court's determination with respect to the retrospective release issue. 11 Therefore, we affirm subject to the Alabama Supreme Court's interpretation of the Franchise Act as it applies to the Release.