Opinion ID: 2226623
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Dismissal of Negligence Cause of Action Against Both Appellees

Text: Furthermore, Tess correctly asserts that complete dismissal with prejudice of one of multiple causes of action is a final, appealable order as to that cause of action. In Interholzinger v. Estate of Dent, 214 Neb. 264, 333 N.W.2d 895 (1983), we held that an order sustaining the defendant's motion for summary judgment which dismissed the plaintiff's cause of action for alleged legal malpractice was a final, appealable order notwithstanding the fact that the separate and distinct cause of action for money had and received remained pending for trial. However, the Interholzinger court was careful to distinguish separate causes of action from different theories of recovery. Thus, if Tess pled separate causes of action as opposed to different theories of recovery, the district court order was a final, appealable order with respect to his negligence claim. In Interholzinger v. Estate of Dent, supra , the plaintiff sued the estate of his attorney, alleging professional negligence on the part of the attorney concerning the manner in which he attempted to sell the plaintiff's business. The plaintiff also pled a cause of action for money had and received by the deceased attorney. In Interholzinger, we found this to be two separate causes of action, as the causes are based on two separate factual occurrences: the receipt and holding of money, and the performance of legal services. Similarly, in Ravenna Bank v. Custom Unlimited, 223 Neb. 540, 391 N.W.2d 557 (1986), this court found a petition which alleged default on a promissory note by a partnership and enforcement of a guarantee of that debt by an individual partner to constitute two causes of action. Even though both causes were based on one debt, because a guarantee is a collateral undertaking by one to answer for the debt of another, the petition in fact described two transactions. In contrast, in P.R. Halligan Post 163 v. Schultz, 212 Neb. 329, 322 N.W.2d 657 (1982), the plaintiff filed suit against the parents of a 13-year-old boy to recover damages to a building caused by a fire set by the child. The petition alleged two purported causes of action: parental liability for the willful and intentional acts of a child, and negligent supervision of the child. This court held dismissal of the first cause of action was not a final, appealable order, as both causes of action were instead merely different theories of recovery arising out of the same factual circumstances involving the same parties. The instant case is controlled by the Interholzinger and Ravenna Bank cases. Here, Tess alleges that in 1986, appellees negligently failed to either discover or disclose in a title commitment protective covenants affecting property he intended to purchase, and later in 1994, Lawyers Title failed to indemnify him pursuant to the terms of the title insurance policy. Tess does not allege one set of operative facts from which all damages flow. Instead, he has alleged the occurrence of two separate transactions. The operative facts regarding the negligence cause of action commenced on September 11, 1986, and concluded on or about the October 1 closing date (i.e., failure to discover or disclose protective covenants in title commitment). The operative facts regarding the contract cause of action commenced with the issuance of the title insurance policy on October 7 and continue until the time of trial (i.e., failure to indemnify insured for damage by reason of defect or unmarketability of title for use intended by Tess). As such, we conclude that Tess has pled two causes of action, not two theories of recovery. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the district court order was not a final, appealable order with respect to the complete dismissal with prejudice of Tess' negligence cause of action against both appellees.