Hartung Commercial Properties v. Buffi’s Automotive Equipment and Supply (Ala. 12/7/18), https://acis.alabama.gov/displaydocs.cfm?no=915441&event=5CZ0LF196, involved a fire that destroyed a body shop. The fire was investigated by the city fire department, ATF, and two insurance company fire experts. The investigators thoroughly photographed the scene and wrote reports. The insurance carriers’ fire experts concluded that the fire had started in the paint booth and was caused by faulty wiring, which had been installed by a Buffi’s employee during repairs. The city fire marshal believed that the fire probably began in one of the vehicles parked inside the body shop, but his report ultimately held that the cause of the fire was undetermined.
After the investigations were completed, Hartung (the body shop’s owner) hired someone to demolish the body shop and all the equipment inside it, including the paint booth and its electrical components, and clear the property. Then Hartung sued Buffi’s. Buffi’s moved for summary judgment on the ground of spoliation of evidence, arguing “that Hartung allowed the body shop to be demolished even though it believed at the time that Buffi’s Automotive had caused the fire; that Buffi’s was named as a defendant only after the evidence was destroyed; and that Buffi’s should have been placed on notice of the claim and allowed to inspect the premises with its own experts prior to the destruction of the evidence.”
The trial court granted Buffi’s motion for summary judgment, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed. After pointing out that summary judgment on the ground of spoliation of evidence is equivalent to dismissal as a sanction for discovery misconduct, the court listed five factors to be considered when analyzing a spoliation issue. The two key factors in this case were “the importance of the evidence destroyed” and “alternative sources of the information that would have been available from the evidence destroyed.” The court reversed the summary judgment because Buffi’s had failed to present evidence to support a finding in its favor on those two points:
Buffi’s Automotive had at its disposal several individuals who had investigated the fire and had taken photographs and written reports detailing their findings; and it very well could be that, after deposing those individuals or hiring its own expert, Buffi’s [would be] able to present evident from which the circuit court could conclude that the available evidence is not an adequate alternative to the destroyed evidence….However, the circuit court was not presented with evidence to support such a conclusion at this stage of the proceedings. Notably, in each of the three cases Buffi’s Automotive primarily relied upon as analogous cases in its motion for summary judgment, …the defendants presented expert testimony as to the relative importance of the destroyed evidence and the insufficiency of the alternative sources of information available to the non-spoliating party.” (Emphasis added.)
Whenever a case that requires expert testimony to establish a material fact (such as fire origin and causation as in Hartung v. Buffi’s, deviation from the standard of care or causation in a medical malpractice case, or defectiveness in a product liability case) has a spoliation of evidence issue, proper analysis of that issue will also require expert testimony. If you’re dealing with spoliation, call Vident Partners for the right expert to address the issue.
