Cook's Pest Control, Inc. v. Rebar

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed appeals arising from a jury verdict against Cook's Pest Control in favor of homeowners who alleged that Cook's failed to detect, control, and disclose termite infestation and related property damage. The court addressed preservation of challenges to the denial of a judgment as a matter of law and considered whether the homeowners presented substantial evidence supporting fraud, negligence, negligence per se, and contract-related claims.

Holdings

1. A party preserves an insufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge by moving for a judgment as a matter of law at the close of all evidence, specifying insufficiency of the evidence as a ground, and timely renewing the motion after judgment. A separate objection to the jury instructions under Rule 51 is not required.
2. The Rebars could not maintain contract or tort claims based on Cook's pre-purchase conduct relating to its termite-control relationship with the Duells.
3. The Rebars lacked substantial evidence supporting fraudulent suppression, fraudulent misrepresentation, or negligence claims to the extent those claims were based on Cook's preparation of the wood-infestation inspection report.
4. The trial court erred in denying Cook's motion for a JML on the negligence per se claim because the Rebars identified no specific regulatory violation and presented no evidence establishing the elements of negligence per se.
5. The Rebars could not recover for fraudulent misrepresentation based on the alleged representation that Cook's transferred the Duells' contract rather than requiring them to enter a new contract.
6. Cook's was not entitled to a JML on the claim that it fraudulently suppressed facts about the wood-below-grade defect and induced the Rebars to enter the Sentricon contract.
7. Cook's was not entitled to a JML on the breach-of-contract claim because its novation argument depended on the validity of the later Sentricon contract, which could have been procured by fraud.
8. When a jury returns a general verdict encompassing multiple claims, including claims unsupported by substantial evidence, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered because the appellate court cannot presume that the verdict rested solely on the supported claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Cook's preserved its insufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge by moving for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all evidence and renewing that motion after judgment, without separately objecting to the jury instructions under Rule 51.
2. Whether the Rebars presented substantial evidence supporting their fraud, negligence, negligence per se, breach-of-contract, and promissory-estoppel claims.
3. Whether the prior termite-control contract between Cook's and the Duells created contractual or tort duties enforceable by the Rebars as subsequent purchasers.
4. Whether the April 2000 liquid-barrier termite-control contract was extinguished by novation when the parties later executed the Sentricon contract.
5. Whether the general verdict required reversal because it may have rested on claims unsupported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded