Opinion ID: 1669608
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Negligence/Wantonness Claim

Text: The Turners first appeal the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Westhampton as to their claim asserting general negligence and/or wantonness in the construction of their house. In its motion for a summary judgment, Westhampton pleaded the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense to this claim. The Turners argue that their cause of action for negligence and/or wantonness accrued upon their discovery of the defect in April 2001, citing Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-220(e), which allows certain plaintiffs to file an action within two years from the date of discovery of any latent damage or defect. This discovery rule, however, is limited to actions against an architect, engineer, or builder, as defined in [§§ 6-5-220 through -228]. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-221(b) (emphasis added). Westhampton, however, argues that it does not fit within the following statutory definition of a builder found in § 6-5-220: Any individual, partnership, firm, or corporation that constructed, or performed or managed the construction of, an improvement, or any portion thereof, on or to real estate, and [which] at the time of the construction was licensed as a general contractor in the State of Alabama. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-220(a) (emphasis added). Westhampton argues that it is not licensed as a general contractor in the State of Alabama and that it therefore does not fit within that definition. However, our review of the record shows that Westhampton did not present this argument in support of its summary-judgment motion. Summary judgment cannot be entered against the nonmoving party on the basis of a failure of that party's proof unless the motion for summary judgment has challenged that failure of proof. Ex parte McCord-Baugh, 894 So.2d 679 (Ala.2004); McKenzie v. Killian, 887 So.2d 861 (Ala.2004); Hollis v. City of Brighton, 885 So.2d 135 (Ala.2004); Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. University Health Servs. Found., P.C., 881 So.2d 1013 (Ala.2003); and Tanner v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 874 So.2d 1058 (Ala.2003). This Court can affirm a trial court's judgment for any reason, but only if the record on appeal evidences the fact that is the basis for the affirmance. Ex parte Ryals, 773 So.2d 1011, 1013 (Ala.2000). Reviewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Turners, we conclude that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment for Westhampton as to the Turners' general negligence and/or wantonness claim.