Opinion ID: 1867518
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Civil-Conspiracy Claim

Text: Civil conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful end or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means. Keith v. Witt Auto Sales, Inc., 578 So.2d 1269, 1274 (Ala. 1991) (citing Eidson v. Olin Corp., 527 So.2d 1283 (Ala.1988)). The gist of an action alleging civil conspiracy is not the conspiracy itself but, rather, the wrong committed. 578 So.2d at 1274 (citing Sadie v. Martin, 468 So.2d 162 (Ala.1985)). Columbus argues that it is well established that `liability for civil conspiracy rests upon the existence of an underlying wrong and [that] if the underlying wrong provides no cause of action, then neither does the conspiracy.' Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Transp., 764 So.2d 1263, 1271 (Ala.2000) (quoting Jones v. BP Oil Co., 632 So.2d 435, 439 (Ala.1993)). Because the trial court entered a summary judgment for Columbus on the underlying wrongs, that is, on the breach-of-contract, wanton-misconduct, and willful-misconduct claims, Columbus argues, there remains no basis for the civil-conspiracy claim. However, this Court is reversing the summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim. In Barber v. Stephenson, 260 Ala. 151, 155, 69 So.2d 251, 254 (1954), this Court defined civil conspiracy as the combination of two or more persons to do (a) something that is unlawful, oppressive, or immoral; or (b) something that is not unlawful, oppressive, or immoral, by unlawful, oppressive, or immoral means; or (c) something that is unlawful, oppressive, or immoral, by unlawful, oppressive, or immoral means. Dr. Hooper has failed to establish that Columbus's alleged breach of contract was unlawful, oppressive, or immoral, or was done by unlawful, oppressive, or immoral means, as described in Barber. Nor has Dr. Hooper cited applicable caselaw to establish that a breach of contract similar to the breach he alleges by Columbus can be the underlying wrong upon which a civil conspiracy can rest. As this court stated in Beachcroft Properties, LLP v. City of Alabaster, 901 So.2d 703, 708 (Ala.2004): Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R.App. P., requires the appellant to cite relevant authority in support of its arguments. This is so, because `it is neither our duty nor function to perform all the legal research for an appellant.' Henderson v. Alabama A & M Univ., 483 So.2d 392, 392 (Ala.1986) (quoting Gibson v. Nix, 460 So.2d 1346, 1347 (Ala.Civ.App.1984)). `Nor is it the function of the appellate courts to make and address legal arguments for a party based on undelineated propositions not supported by sufficient authority or argument.' Pileri Indus., Inc. v. Consolidated Indus., Inc., 740 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (quoting Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So.2d 248, 251 (Ala.1994)). Authority supporting only `general propositions of law' does not constitute a sufficient argument for reversal. Geisenhoff v. Geisenhoff, 693 So.2d 489, 491 (Ala.Civ.App.1997). Because Dr. Hooper has failed to demonstrate that civil conspiracy can be based upon a breach of contract as the underlying wrong, we do not address that claim. To the extent the summary judgment disposed of that claim, we affirm it.