Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. John W. Wells

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel 04/23/10 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1070213 Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. John W. Wells 1070214 Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Harold Mitchell, as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e e s t a t e o f Reba Mae M i t c h e l l , deceased 1070215 Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. James Newman 1070216 Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Floyd Patterson 1070217 Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Roger Hugh Young and D i n a h Young T a t e , as c o e x e c u t o r s e s t a t e o f P a u l i n e Young, d e c e a s e d 1070218 Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. 2 o f the R o s a l y n D i a n e D a v i s and M a r i l y n Joanne Woods, as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e e s t a t e o f Ruby W i l l i a m s , d e c e a s e d A p p e a l s from C o l b e r t C i r c u i t C o u r t ( C V - 0 6 - 3 1 9 . 8 0 ; CV-06-282.80; CV-06-298; CV-06-299; CV-06281; PER CURIAM. In the CV-05-321) s i x separate appeals purpose of w r i t i n g that have been one o p i n i o n , this I l l i n o i s , Inc. ("O-I"), a defendant involving asbestos court's denial claims of exposure, John representative W. Newman; F l o y d Young Tate, d e c e a s e d ; and Rosalyn personal deceased. plaintiffs"). See R u l e Facts Between separate August actions, defendants. deceased; Roger Hugh the estate Davis of Young of and M a r i l y n the estate referred o f Ruby collectively We 2005, and the p l a i n t i f f s Woods, Williams, as " t h e affirm. History July sued alleged Young, Joanne R. A p p . P. 3 and Dinah Pauline to and P r o c e d u r a l The p l a i n t i f f s on t h e personal 5, A l a . 5, the t r i a l o f R e b a Mae M i t c h e l l , Diane (hereinafter to appeal actions Mitchell, of representatives i n theunderlying Harold Patterson; coexecutors Owens- f o r a summary j u d g m e n t Wells; of the estate James Court granted permission of i t s motions consolidated f o r 24, 2006, O-I a n d v a r i o u s that O-I p r o d u c e d i ns i x other and/or 1070213; 1070214; 1070215; i n s t a l l e d products for certain exposure alleged and those that pipe O-I or deaths produced a n d t h a t O-I was t h a t were products. 1070218 allegedly Specifically, and/or I t i s undisputed thermal-insulation-products Fiberglas Corporation Kaylo I t i s also defense Alabama's by plaintiffs insulation that contained i t sentire to Kaylo Owens-Corning i n 1958 a n d t h a t O-I d i d n o t p r o d u c e o r undisputed 20-year evidence sold business asbestos-containing 1958. presented O-I caused block installed that liable the c o v e r i n g u n d e r t h e t r a d e name " K a y l o " asbestos. install 1070217; containing asbestos injuries to 1070216; products that common-law indicating that O-I, w h i c h the f i l i n g as April asserts 30, as a rule of repose, has not the manifest, present i n j u r y a l l e g e d l y s u f f e r e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s 20 y e a r s b e f o r e after o c c u r r e d more 1 a defendant. In A p r i l of 2007, O-I m o v e d the s i x cases, barred trial arguing by Alabama's court denied o f t h e amended c o m p l a i n t than 20-year n a m i n g O-I f o r a summary j u d g m e n t that the p l a i n t i f f s ' common-law rule i n each claims of repose. are The O - I ' s m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n e a c h S e e G r i f f i n v . U n o c a l C o r p . , 990 S o . 2 d 2 9 1 , 2 9 3 ( A l a . 2008) ( h o l d i n g t h a t i n t o x i c - s u b s t a n c e - e x p o s u r e cases, "a cause of a c t i o n accrues o n l y when t h e r e h a s o c c u r r e d a manifest, present injury"). 1 4 1070213; 1070214; of the s i x cases. 5, A l a . R. denying the question App. of difference orders would 1070215; law of P., certified as to which opinion, materially in that that court, the motions there an advance The trial 1070218 pursuant interlocutory involve a immediate the orders for from i t s t e r m i n a t i o n of avoid protracted court's certification Court h e l d as follows based "As there i s currently no affirmative evidence before the Court that the Plaintiff suffered a manifest, present injury such that a l l of the essential e l e m e n t s o f h i s c l a i m c o - e x i s t e d more t h a n twenty years before the filing of the A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t n a m i n g O-I as a p a r t y defendant, O-I's Motion for Summary J u d g m e n t on t h e G r o u n d s o f t h e R u l e of Repose i s DENIED. "See S e p t e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 O r d e r . T h i s C o u r t reached t h i s c o n c l u s i o n based upon i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Alabama law; however, there appears to be a substantial ground for difference of opinion c o n c e r n i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e t w e n t y (20) y e a r common l a w R u l e o f R e p o s e g i v e n p r i o r c a s e s s u c h a s E x p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 825 So. 2 d 758 (Ala. 2 0 0 2 ) , and A m e r i c a n G e n e r a l L i f e & A c c i d e n t I n s u r a n c e Co v . U n d e r w o o d , 8 8 6 So. 2 d 807 (Ala. 2003), and in this Court's o p i n i o n i t would be b e n e f i c i a l f o r an i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p e a l t o be g r a n t e d 5 and i n each part: " S p e c i f i c a l l y , the upon c o n t r o l l i n g l a w : Rule ground appeal ultimate to controlling is substantial and t h a t t h e a p p e a l w o u l d expensive l i t i g a t i o n . stated, 1070217; However, the t r i a l summary-judgment the l i t i g a t i o n , case 1070216; 1070213; 1070214; 1070215; 1070216; and t h e r e be a r e v i e w Supreme C o u r t . " of t h i s We g r a n t e d O - I ' s p e t i t i o n six c a s e s , a n d we now a f f i r m the motions (Ala. this disputed L.L.C. (citing by t h e Alabama the t r i a l court's orders denying f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n a l l s i x c a s e s . "Because Hosp., issue 1070218 f o rpermission to appeal i n a l l Standard material 1070217; case of Review involves facts, only our review v. W i l l i f o r d , 21 So. issues i s de 3d o f law and novo." 7 1 2 , 714 no Affinity ( A l a . 2009) P a d g e t t v . C o n e c u h C o u n t y Comm'n, 901 S o . 2 d 6 7 8 , 685 2004)). Discussion On appeal, the 20-year at the time claim or including the only issue before this Court i s whether c o m m o n - l a w r u l e o f r e p o s e b e g i n s t o r u n on a c l a i m of the defendant's when a l l the injury, file an a c t i o n . this Court essential coexist After addressed actions so t h a t very elements i n these issue 6 rise to the that claim, could validly c a s e s were in Collins Homes, I n c . , [Ms. 1 0 7 0 8 7 5 , J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 ] 2009). of the p l a i n t i f f the appeals that giving So. 3d v. taken, Scenic (Ala. 1070213; 1070214; In Collins, constructed the wantonness. in 1070216; residents 1070217; 1070218 of an 2004 w e r e p r o x i m a t e l y safe negligence the residents alleged that caused by t h e d e s i g n e r ' s and t h e owner's apartment building failure with to maintain, adequate safeguards and adequate escape r o u t e s . a judgment, summary claims against repose. entered Court the o f t h e b u i l d i n g and owner o f t h e b u i l d i n g , a l l e g i n g Specifically, building and injuries r e c e i v e d when t h e b u i l d i n g was s e t on f i r e b y a n a r s o n i s t construct, of apartment i n t h e 1980s sued t h e d e s i g n e r apparent they 1070215; i t were b a r r e d The a summary reversed common-law arguing, trial court's r u l e of repose The d e s i g n e r other agreed i n favor a things, moved f o r that rule and We On appeal, fully as f o l l o w s : "'Since 1858, causes of action a s s e r t e d i n A l a b a m a c o u r t s m o r e t h a n 20 years a f t e r they c o u l d have been a s s e r t e d have been considered to have been e x t i n g u i s h e d by t h e r u l e o f repose. See R e c t o r v . B e t t e r H o u s e s , I n c . , 820 S o . 2 d 7 5 , 77 n.2 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ( " S i n c e t h i s C o u r t d e c i d e d M c A r t h u r v. C a r r i e ' s A d m i n i s t r a t o r , 32 A l a . 75 ( 1 8 5 8 ) , A l a b a m a h a s f o l l o w e d a this examined " I n Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l L i f e Insurance Co., 825 So. 2d 758 ( A l a . 2002), this Court discussed the r u l e of repose, stating: 7 the common-law of i t . and h e l d reasonably the designer with judgment. to fire-suppression by t h e 20-year court judgment the t r i a l among failure 1070213; 1070214; 1070215; 1070216; 1070217; 1070218 rule of repose, or r u l e of p r e s c r i p t i o n , of 20 years."). The w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d rule recognizes the r e a l i t i e s that surround the i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e passage o f time and t h e a b i l i t y t o f a i r l y and j u s t l y resolve disputes: "'"As a matter of p u b l i c policy, and f o r t h e repose o f society, i t has long been t h e s e t t l e d p o l i c y o f t h i s s t a t e , as of others, that antiquated demands w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d b y the courts, and t h a t , without regard to any statute of l i m i t a t i o n s , t h e r e must be a t i m e b e y o n d w h i c h human transactions w i l l n o t be i n q u i r e d i n t o It i s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e peace and security of society that there s h o u l d be an e n d o f l i t i g a t i o n , and i t i s inequitable to allow t h o s e who h a v e s l e p t u p o n their r i g h t s f o r a p e r i o d o f 20 y e a r s , a f t e r t h e y m i g h t have [ b r o u g h t an action], and after, as i s g e n e r a l l y t h e c a s e , t h e memory o f transactions has faded and parties and witnesses passed a w a y , t o [ b r i n g a n a c t i o n ] . The consensus of opinion i n the present day i s that such presumption i s conclusive, and t h e p e r i o d o f 20 y e a r s , without some d i s t i n c t a c t i n r e c o g n i t i o n of the [claimant's right], a c o m p l e t e b a r ; a n d , as s a i d i n an early case, 'the presumption rests not only on t h e want o f diligence i n asserting rights, b u t on t h e h i g h e r g r o u n d t h a t i t i s necessary to suppress frauds, to avoid long dormant claims, 8 1 0 7 0 2 1 3 ; 1 0 7 0 2 1 4 ; 1 0 7 0 2 1 5 ; 1 0 7 0 2 1 6 ; 1 0 7 0 2 1 7 ; 1070218 which, i t has been said, have often more o f c r u e l t y than of j u s t i c e i n them, t h a t i t c o n d u c e s to peace of society and the happiness of families, "and relieves courts from the n e c e s s i t y of a d j u d i c a t i n g r i g h t s so o b s c u r e b y t h e l a p s e o f t i m e and the accidents of l i f e that the attainment of truth and j u s t i c e i s next to i m p o s s i b l e . " ' " " ' S n o d g r a s s v. Snodgrass, 176 Ala. 276, 2 8 0 - 8 1 , 58 So. 2 0 1 , 2 0 1 - 0 2 (1 9 1 2 ) ; s e e a l s o O x f o r d v . E s t e s , 229 A l a . 606, 6 1 1 , 158 So. 534, 538 ( 1 9 3 4 ) ( " F a i l u r e o f memory, l o s s of evidence, death of parties, the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e w h o l e t r u t h c a n n o t be a s c e r t a i n e d and j u s t i c e done, e n t e r into the e q u a t i o n as a r e a s o n f o r t h e r u l e [ o f repose]."). [T]he " r u l e i s c o u c h e d i n t e r m s of the 'running of the period against claims,' 'absolute bar to unasserted claims,' ' l a c k of d i l i g e n c e i n a s s e r t i n g rights,' 'sleeping upon their rights,' e t c . " and i s a c c o r d i n g l y b a s e d upon "the pre-existing r i g h t to assert a claim." B o s h e l l [ v . K e i t h ] , 418 So. 2d [ 8 9 , ] a t 92 [(Ala. 1982)]. Therefore, the 20-year p e r i o d b e g i n s to run a g a i n s t claims the first time those claims c o u l d have been asserted, regardless of the claimant's n o t i c e o f a c l a i m . See M o o r e [ v . L i b e r t y N a t ' l I n s . C o . ] , 108 F. S u p p . 2d [ 1 2 6 6 ] a t 1275 [(N.D. A l a . 2000)] ("Application of t h e r u l e o f r e p o s e h a s o n l y one e l e m e n t -¬ the passage of twenty years time from the moment t h a t t h e a c t i o n s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e 9 1070213; 1070214; 1070215; 1070216; 1070217; 1070218 c l a i m o c c u r r e d -- a n d , i f t h a t time e l a p s e d , no c l a i m c a n be p u r s u e d . " ) . ' has "825 So. 2d a t 7 6 3 - 6 4 (some e m p h a s i s o r i g i n a l ; some e m p h a s i s added) ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . T h u s , as we s t a t e d i n T i e r c e v . E l l i s , 624 So. 2d 5 5 3 , 554 ( A l a . 1993), the r u l e of repose 'bars a c t i o n s t h a t have n o t b e e n c o m m e n c e d w i t h i n 20 y e a r s f r o m t h e time they c o u l d have been commenced.' Alternatively, ' [ t ] h e r u l e o f r e p o s e b e g i n s r u n n i n g on a c l a i m a s s o o n as a l l o f t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o f t h a t c l a i m c o e x i s t so t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f c o u l d v a l i d l y file s u i t . ' A m e r i c a n Gen. L i f e & A c c i d e n t I n s . C o . , 886 So. 2 d 8 0 7 , 812 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . "The residents contend that the 20-year common-law r u l e o f r e p o s e does n o t b a r t h e i r a c t i o n a g a i n s t [the d e s i g n e r ] because, they say, they d i d not have the r i g h t t o sue u n t i l a f t e r the fire o c c u r r e d . We agree. "'A p a r t y h a s a c a u s e o f a c t i o n ... on t h e date the f i r s t l e g a l i n j u r y o c c u r s , but not necessarily from the date of the act causing the i n j u r y That i s , where the act complained of does not itself c o n s t i t u t e a l e g a l i n j u r y at the time, but the p l a i n t i f f ' s injury comes o n l y a s a result of, and in furtherance and subsequent development o f , the a c t of the defendant, the cause of a c t i o n " a c c r u e s , " ... "'when, a n d o n l y w h e n , t h e d a m a g e s a r e sustained.'"' " S m i t h v . M e d t r o n i c , I n c . , 607 So. 2 d 1 5 6 , 159 ( A l a . 1992). See S p a i n v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco C o r p . , 872 So. 2d 1 0 1 , 117 ( A l a . 2003) (Johnstone, J., concurring in part, concurring specially in p a r t , and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t ) ; c f . G r i f f i n v. U n o c a l C o r p . , 990 So. 2d 291 ( A l a . 2008) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a w r o n g f u l - d e a t h a c t i o n a c c r u e s o n l y when t h e r e i s a manifest, present injury). 10 1070213; 1070214; 1070215; 1070216; 1070217; 1070218 "In t h i s c a s e , t h e r e s i d e n t s d i d n o t have a v i a b l e and c o g n i z a b l e c l a i m a g a i n s t [the designer] u n t i l t h e f i r e o c c u r r e d and t h e r e s i d e n t s suffered i n j u r i e s as a r e s u l t o f t h e f i r e . O n l y t h e n d i d t h e r e s i d e n t s have a r i g h t t o sue. Thus, because t h e 2 0 - y e a r common-law r u l e o f r e p o s e i s p r e m i s e d upon a p r e e x i s t i n g r i g h t t o a s s e r t a c l a i m and because the r e s i d e n t s d i d n o t have such a r i g h t u n t i l t h e fire o c c u r r e d and t h e y sustained injuries as a result o f an alleged breach of duty by [the d e s i g n e r ] a n d b e c a u s e t h e r e s i d e n t s s u e d w i t h i n 20 years of t h e i r injuries, the r u l e of repose i s inapplicable to this case. Therefore, the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t f o r [ t h e d e s i g n e r ] b a s e d on t h e r u l e o f r e p o s e . " Collins, In year So. 3d a t the present Rule of . case, Repose O-I runs argues from that the point "the twenty i n time (20) of the d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e c l a i m . " O-I's b r i e f , a t 16. However, Collins. begin depend court be Court directly Alabama's 20-year t o r u n on a c l a i m that claim, could this that argument i n common-law r u l e o f r e p o s e does n o t until a l l the e s s e n t i a l elements of i n c l u d i n g an i n j u r y , c o e x i s t so t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f validly solely file on an a c t i o n . the actions correctly held entered rejected that i n O-I's f a v o r rule of repose of the defendant. does n o t The trial i n o r d e r f o r a summary j u d g m e n t t o based t h e s e f a c t s , O-I was r e q u i r e d the p l a i n t i f f The on t h e r u l e of repose t o p r e s e n t evidence showing under that s u f f e r e d a m a n i f e s t , p r e s e n t i n j u r y m o r e t h a n 20 11 1070213; years before defendant coexisted trial 1070214; so the filing that at that court 1070215; 1070216; of the complaint a l lthe e s s e n t i a l time. properly 1070217; This 1070218 naming elements i t has n o t done. denied O-I's of O-I the as a claim Therefore, the motions for a summary court's d e n i a l o f O-I's judgment. Conclusion B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , summary-judgment motions 1070213 -- A F F I R M E D . 1070216 -- A F F I R M E D . 1070217 -- A F F I R M E D . 1070218 i s affirmed. -- A F F I R M E D . 1070215 i n a l l s i x actions -- A F F I R M E D . 1070214 the t r i a l -- A F F I R M E D . Cobb, C . J . , and L y o n s , W o o d a l l , S m i t h , B o l i n , JJ., concur. Stuart, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t . Murdock a n d Shaw, J J . , d i s s e n t . 12 and Parker, 1070213; 1070214; MURDOCK, J u s t i c e For the Collins v. So. 3d part 1070215; 1070216; 1070217; 1070218 (dissenting). reasons Scenic , and d i s s e n t i n g expressed Homes, in I n c . , [Ms. ( A l a . 2009) i n part), my special 1070875, writing June 30, 2009] (Murdock, J . , concurring I respectfully dissent. 13 in in 1070213; 1070214; SHAW, J u s t i c e I Collins 200 9] (on 1070215; Scenic So. 3d application 1070217; 1070218 (dissenting). respectfully v. 1070216; dissent. See Homes, Inc., , ( A l a . 2009) for rehearing). 14 [Ms. my special 1070875, (Shaw, writing November in 25, J., dissenting)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.