Opinion ID: 1897018
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Claim Against Continental.

Text: Under plaintiff's complaint, the theory of Continental's liability was that Continental negligently failed to perform safety inspections and to advise Clark Construction Company of an unsafe and dangerous conditionthat there was no headache ball on the crane and that grease was on the chain of the crane. According to the evidence, a headache ball is a metal ball of a shape similar to that of a basketball and such balls are manufactured in various sizes. When utilized in construction, it is shackled to the end of a crane cable. The headache ball is not a permanent part of a crane, and, when not in use, it is detached from the cable. The evidence disclosed that Clark Construction Company did not use headache balls for pile driving. In a recent case, this Court has reiterated the principles governing liability of an insurance company for negligent safety inspection. In Adams v. Travelers Ins. Co., 494 So.2d 401, 403 (Ala.1986), this Court quoted from Barnes v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 472 So.2d 1041, 1042 (Ala. 1985): Common law liability to third parties can arise from the negligent performance of even a voluntary undertaking. Beasley v. MacDonald Engineering Co., 287 Ala. 189, 249 So.2d 844 (1971). Under current Alabama law, a worker's compensation carrier may be liable when it voluntarily undertakes to inspect an employer's premises for safety. Fireman's Fund American Insurance Co. v. Coleman, 394 So.2d 334, 338 (Ala.1980). However, in a suit of this nature, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving (1) that the defendant had a duty, or assumed a duty by voluntarily undertaking the inspection; (2) the scope of that duty; (3) whether the duty was breached; (4) whether there was damage or injury; and (5) whether the injury was proximately caused by that breach. Fireman's Fund, 394 So.2d at 349 (Jones, J., concurring); see also, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Jones, 356 So.2d 596 (Ala.1977). In Barnes, we held that proof of a general inspection of the premises by the insurance carrier was insufficient to establish a negligent inspection when that proof did not contain any evidence of an undertaking by the insurance carrier to inspect the specific area of the plant where the injury occurred. Barnes, 472 So.2d at 1042. In Adams, we refused to accept the plaintiff's argument that the insurance company's failure to inspect the plant while it was in operation was, in and of itself, proof of a negligent inspection. Adams, 494 So.2d at 404. Since the inspection had occurred after the plant had shut down for the day, we held that the insurance company had not undertaken a duty to discover any defects in its insured's operation. Id. The instant case also turns on the question of duty. From an inspection of the record, it is apparent that the question of the extent of Continental's undertaking ( i.e., the duty issue) is controlled by this Court's holdings in Barnes and Adams, supra . In this case, the plaintiff's sole witness offered on the claim of negligent inspection was David Floyd, the brother of the plaintiff. David Floyd testified that an insurance company employee did a field inspection at the Highway 84 jobsite (between Andalusia and Opp) sometime in July 1982 and looked at the equipment and everything out there, including the crane later involved in his brother's injury. There was no evidence whatsoever that the crane was being used for driving pilings at that time, nor was there any evidence that it did or did not have a headache ball at the time of this purported inspection. Additionally, there was no evidence introduced through David Floyd, or any other witness, that Continental made a safety inspection of this crane or of the work area at the site in Pickens County where the plaintiff was injured. Furthermore, Continental's records, which the plaintiff introduced, disclosed that the most recent jobsite inspection had been on October 10, 1980, on a bridge construction site at Abbie Creek near Abbeville, Alabama, but this evidence did not establish the occurrence of a pile driving operation at the time of that job site inspection. Indeed, the evidence established that the bridge was two-thirds completed when Continental inspected it. The plaintiff did introduce a Loss Control Report prepared by Continental dated August 5, 1982, but the loss control representative who completed the survey testified that it was merely a regular complete survey: Q. What, for the jury, is a regular complete survey? A. This is when we would go to the main office of the insured to find out about what his operations were. The extent of his operations as they would pertain to that type of business. For instance, whether he was a bridge contractor, whether it was large bridges, small bridges or whatever. Q. Is that an office visit? A. That's usually done at the office, yes. Q. As requested, did you make an office visit? A. I did that. Q. The second request on that form was for a job site survey? A. That's correct. Q. What is a job site survey as compared to an office visit or a regular complete survey? A. That would be when I would go out to the insured's job site and observe to see that their operations were there, the extent of their activity and what their activities or processes were at that time. Q. Could I ask you to review what has already been marked and introduced into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibits Seven, Eight, and Nine, if you would review them and tell me what they are? A. These are reports that I prepared after my visit to the insured's office. Q. Are they office visit reports? A. Yes. Q. Are they job site reports? A. I did not go to a job site on this particular occasion because there was not a job in progress in the area at the time. Q. Did you prepare those reports? A. Yes, I did. Q. Were all the reports generated from information you obtained from Mr. Clark in Dozier? A. Yes. Q. What is the date of those reports? A. They are dated August the 5th, 1982. Q. August 5, 1982? A. Correct. Q. Is that the date of your office visit? A. Yes. Q. Are you sure? A. Yes. The other records will substantiate this also. . . . . Q. On August the 5th, 1982, did you conduct any job site survey? A. I did not. Q. Between August the 5th, 1982, and when Mr. Floyd injured himself on September 7, 1982, did you conduct any job site survey for Clark Construction Company? A. I did not. Q. Have you ever conducted a survey or an inspection of this Northwest Crane? A. I have not. Q. At anytime for Clark Construction Company? A. I have not. Q. And all of the reports which have been marked into evidence pertain to your office visits? Is that correct? A. Those reports pertain to my office visit, that's correct. On cross-examination, the plaintiff further defined the scope of this inspection: A. It was an office visit and I did not see any equipment. Q. Did you look for any equipment? A. No. Q. You did not bother to look? It was an office visit and did you just talk with Mr. Clark and do nothing else? A. As I recall, his office is in town. Now where he would put some equipment, I would not know. Q. I'm not asking you that now. We have done been into that. I'm asking you now did you do anything in Dozier on August 5th, other than talk to Mr. Clark? A. That's it. Q. Just a conversation? A. That's correct. Q. About what? A. His operations. Moreover, there was a complete absence of any evidence establishing that a headache ball should have been used on a crane job for pile driving. To the contrary, the record disclosed undisputed evidence that the use of a headache ball would have interfered with and hindered the pile driving operation. Thus, in light of our recent decisions in Barnes and Adams, we find that defendant Continental did not undertake the duty to provide a safety inspection for Clark Construction Company; therefore, there can be no breach on which liability would lie for a negligent safety inspection.