Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hugh Cole Builder, Inc.
United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
187 F.R.D. 671 (1999)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Russell Davis’s home was damaged by fire shortly after it was built. The fire started in the fireplace. Davis filed a claim with his insurance company, Allstate Insurance Co. (Allstate) (plaintiff). Allstate paid Davis’s claim and sued Hugh Cole Builder, Inc. (HCB) (defendant), the builder and contractor of the home, as Davis’s subrogee, alleging negligence, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and breach of contract. Hugh Cole Builder Inc. then filed a third-party complaint against Coston Plumbing Company (Coston) (defendant), the subcontractor that put in the gas fireplace starter, and Jenkins Brick Company (Jenkins) (defendant), the subcontractor that built the brick fireplace. The third-party complaint included a claim for negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of contract, breach of an extended-manufacturers-liability doctrine, and breach of express warranty. Jenkins filed a motion to strike the third-party complaint or in the alternative a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint or in the alternative a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the third-party complaint, arguing that the third-party complaint was improper. HCB denied that it was seeking contribution or indemnification from Coston and Jenkins, alleging that these were separate and independent claims from Allstate’s claims against HCB.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Albritton, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.