Fleetwood Trucking Company, Inc. v. Cahaba Resources, LLC and Crawford Enterprises, LLC , 159 So. 3d 628 ( 2014 )

Rel: 07/03/2014
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2014
____________________
1130053
____________________
Fleetwood Trucking Company, Inc.
v.
Cahaba Resources, LLC, and Crawford Enterprises, LLC
____________________
1130074
____________________
Cahaba Resources, LLC
v.
Fleetwood Trucking Company, Inc.
Appeals from Tuscaloosa Circuit Court
(CV-13-900811)
MAIN, Justice.
1130053, 1130074
1130053 –- AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.
See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.
Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Wise, and Bryan, JJ.,
concur.
Moore, C.J., concurs specially.
1130074 –- AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.
See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.
Moore, C.J., and Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Wise, and
Bryan, JJ., concur.
2
1130053, 1130074
MOORE, Chief Justice (concurring specially in case no.
1130053).
Fleetwood Trucking Company, Inc. ("Fleetwood"), sued
Cahaba Resources, LLC ("Cahaba"), and Crawford Enterprises,
LLC ("Crawford"), in the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court, seeking
indemnity for black-lung benefits the United States Department
of Labor ordered Fleetwood to pay a former employee under the
Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. The
Department of Labor's ruling is currently on appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The
Tuscaloosa Circuit Court dismissed Fleetwood's action against
Cahaba and Crawford, subsequent employers of the employee, on
the ground that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the
indemnity claim. Fleetwood now appeals to this Court.
I concur in affirming the judgment of the Tuscaloosa
Circuit Court. I write separately because I do not believe the
Tuscaloosa Circuit Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction
over a common-law indemnity claim. Rather, the proper ground
for the judgment for Cahaba and Crawford and against Fleetwood
was Fleetwood's failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted because its claims, given the procedural
3
1130053, 1130074
posture of this case, are premature. See Rule 12(b)(6), Ala.
R. Civ. P.
Alabama courts retain subject-matter jurisdiction over
indemnity claims. Precision Gear Co. v. Continental Motors,
Inc., 135 So. 3d 953, 960 (Ala. 2013)("Under Alabama law, an
indemnity claim is a tort claim ...."); Amerada Hess Corp. v.
Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 627 So. 2d 367, 370 (Ala.
1993)(noting that "'indemnity should be granted in any factual
situation in which, as between the parties themselves, it is
just and fair that the indemnitor should bear the total
responsibility, rather than leave it on the indemnitee'"
(quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 886B (1977), cmt.
c)). This Court has explained that subject-matter jurisdiction
"concerns a court's power to decide certain types of cases."
Ex parte Seymour, 946 So. 2d 536, 538 (Ala. 2006). Subject-
matter jurisdiction refers to "[j]urisdiction over the nature
of the case and the type of relief sought." Black's Law
Dictionary 983 (10th ed. 2014)(emphasis added).
"Jurisdiction of the subject matter is the power to
hear and determine cases of the general class to
which the proceedings in question belong. The
principle of subject matter jurisdiction relates to
a court's inherent authority to deal with the case
4
1130053, 1130074
or matter before it. The term means not simply
jurisdiction of the particular case then occupying
the attention of the court but jurisdiction of the
class of cases to which the particular case
belongs."
21 C.J.S. Courts § 11 (2006). The Tuscaloosa Circuit Court had
subject-matter jurisdiction over Fleetwood's claims asserting
common-law indemnification even if it did not regard those
claims as meritorious. Ex parte Safeway Ins. Co. of Alabama,
[Ms. 1120439, October 4, 2013] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala.
2013)("There are ... no problems with subject-matter
jurisdiction merely because a party files an action that
ostensibly lacks a probability of merit."). Therefore, my
concurrence should not be taken as upholding the Tuscaloosa
Circuit Court's determination that it lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction over Fleetwood's indemnity claims. I believe
Fleetwood's action is premature because Fleetwood has appealed
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
for relief from the Department of Labor's ruling that, if
granted, would render the present indemnification action moot.
Should the Court of Appeals rule against Fleetwood,
Fleetwood's action for common-law indemnity would be viable.
5
1130053, 1130074
In light of the foregoing, I concur to affirm the judgment of
the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court.
6