Court Holds that Rule 54(b) Certification of Trial Court’s Partial Summary Judgment Was Improper
Williams v. Fann and Progressive Direct Insurance Co
.
Under Rule 54(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court may “direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” Further, the Supreme Court of Alabama has made clear that a court should not certify a judgment under Rule 54(b) if the remaining claims are “intertwined” with a claim disposed of in the interlocutory order. In
Williams v. Fann and Progressive Direct Insurance Co
.,
the threshold issue before the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals was whether the trial court’s certification of its partial summary judgment was proper under Rule 54(b).
In
Williams
, the plaintiff filed a complaint asserting claims of negligence, negligence per se, and wantonness against the co-defendant, Heather Rene Fann, originating from an automobile and bicycle collision. The plaintiff also asserted a claim against Progressive Direct Insurance Company (“Progressive”) seeking uninsured-motorist insurance benefits. Progressive and Fann filed a joint motion for partial summary judgment regarding the plaintiff’s wantonness claim, and the plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the joint motion. Both sides also filed a motion to strike evidence that the opposing side submitted in support of or in opposition to the joint motion for partial summary judgment. After granting the defendants’ joint motion for partial summary judgment regarding the plaintiff’s wantonness claim and the plaintiff’s motion to strike, the trial court certified its ruling as “final” under Rule 54(b).
On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals noted that the plaintiff’s remaining negligence claim required proof of similar essential elements as the wantonness claim; and thus, both claims were closely “intertwined.” The Court also noted the risk of inconsistent results if these claims were adjudicated separately and the increased probability of reviewing the same facts again if this case were to come before the court again. Therefore, because the remaining negligence claim was closely “intertwined” with the dismissed wantonness claim, the Court held that the trial court’s certification of the partial summary judgment under Rule 54(b) was not proper.
