Matthews Bros. Construction Co. v. Stonebrook Development, L.L.C.

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals’ judgment in a dispute involving roadway construction, alleged design defects, indemnity, and breach of warranty. The Court held that the contractor’s third-party indemnity claim against the architect and related entity was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations because the claim accrued when liability became fixed and actual loss was sustained. The Court also affirmed the reversal of the property developer’s breach-of-warranty judgment, concluding that the evidence did not establish that deficiencies in the contractor’s work caused the roadway failures.

Holdings

1. Matthews Brothers' indemnity claim against Sanford and SBA was not time-barred because the claim accrued when Matthews Brothers suffered actual loss through an adverse judgment and resulting liability, not when construction delays first occurred or when Matthews Brothers merely faced the possibility of liquidated damages.
2. The trial court's judgment for Stonebrook on its breach-of-warranty counterclaim was properly reversed because Stonebrook failed to prove that deficiencies in Matthews Brothers' work caused the roadway failures or otherwise breached the warranty.
3. The occurrence rule discussed in Ex parte Panell did not control the indemnity issue because Panell concerned legal malpractice rather than indemnity and was only a plurality opinion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Matthews Brothers' third-party indemnity claim against Sanford and SBA was barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to claims against architects and engineers.
2. Whether the Court of Civil Appeals properly reversed the trial court's judgment for Stonebrook on its breach-of-warranty counterclaim under the ore tenus standard.
3. Whether the Court of Civil Appeals improperly applied the law governing causation in breach-of-warranty claims.

Disposition

affirmed