Opinion ID: 1715028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Satisfaction-of-Judgments Argument

Text: The appellees also argue that the summary judgments should be affirmed because Saad Construction was awarded judgments by the director and those judgments have been satisfied. Although the trial court entered the summary judgments based upon its conclusion that all issues are or were covered by arbitration, our review is not limited to that reasoning, and we may affirm the summary judgments if they are proper for any reason supported by the record. Smith v. Equifax Servs., Inc., 537 So.2d 463 (Ala.1988). It has long been the law in Alabama that a person can sue any number of parties, obtain a judgment against any one, or several of them, but can gain but one satisfaction. Mobile Ins., Inc. v. Smith, 441 So.2d 894, 896 (Ala.1983). Once the judgment has been satisfied for a single injury, no other suits by the plaintiff against any tort-feasor are permitted in regard to the same injury. Ex parte Rudolph, 515 So.2d 704, 708 (Ala.1987). Moreover, a judgment awarding damages to an injured person in one proceeding acts as a limitation on the amount of damages that might be recovered in a subsequent proceeding against others responsible for the injury. Restatement (Second) of Judgments, § 51(2)(a). However, if [t]here were limitations on the competence of the forum in the first action preventing him from obtaining the full measure of his damages, as stated in § 26(1)(c), [ Restatement (Second) of Judgments ], then the injured party may still be entitled to seek those damages unavailable to him in the first action. [7] Id. In count two of its cross-claim/ third-party complaint, Saad Construction alleged that DPF, Mueller, Turberville, and Yonge & Associates knew or should have known that the written specifications for the Spanish Fort project called for electrical service connections to be installed overhead while the drawings referred to underground installation, but that they nevertheless permitted and/or affirmatively instructed Saad Construction to install the connections overhead. In its submission to the director, Saad Construction argued that DPF permitted Saad Construction to complete the electrical service connections overhead. Saad Construction also argued that Yonge & Associates directed Saad Construction's subcontractor to install the electrical service connections overhead. Saad Construction argued that only after the connections were completed did DPF insist that the electrical service connections should be installed underground. Saad Construction argued that DPF either failed to inspect or concealed its findings about the overhead system.... Saad Construction further argued that either the failure or the concealment was attributable to the Board. In count three, Saad Construction alleged that DPF, Turberville, Mueller, and Yonge & Associates knew or should have known that Saad Construction's contract with the Board required the installation of fire dampers, but that the plans and specifications for the project did not call for fire dampers. Saad Construction further alleged that DPF, Turberville, and Yonge & Associates remained silent and allowed [Saad Construction] to act to its detriment by performing certain construction on the Spanish Fort Project without installing dampers. On both of those claims, Saad Construction sought economic damages, including and not limited to, delay in the work, increased overhead, increased cost of performance, interruption of work progress, damage to Saad Construction's reputation, unnecessary disruption of the work of subcontractors and other damages. Saad Construction also sought punitive damages. In the arbitration, the director awarded Saad Construction $11,211 and a 10-day extension for the completion of the project on its claims related to changes in the electrical service connections. The director also awarded Saad Construction $3,022 and a 14-day extension for the completion of the project on Saad Construction's claims related to the fire dampers. It is uncontroverted that the Board satisfied the director's awards to Saad Construction. However, as the director explained the scope of his decisions: The Director does not determine a correct or acceptable remedy to an alleged or proven deficiency, but will determine whether work directed by an owner or design professional is for the account of the contractor or the owner. Certain damages were unavailable to Saad Construction in the arbitration. Thus, Saad Construction is not foreclosed from seeking in its subsequent action against the appellees those damages it could not have recovered in the arbitration. Restatement (Second) of Judgments, § 51(2)(a); see also Dekle, supra, 284 Ala. at 144, 223 So.2d at 31.