Bryant Bank v. Talmage Kirkland & Co., 155 So. 3d 231

Bryant Bank ordered an appraisal from Talmage Kirkland & Co. (TKC) for collateral on a loan to Wallace Seafood Traders (WST); TKC’s report valued the property at $1,700,000.
A prior appraisal (July 2007) had valued the property at $2,400,000; a later appraisal after WST’s default valued it at $205,000.
Bryant Bank approved and funded the loan in December 2007 and WST defaulted in October 2008; Bank sued TKC and its appraisers for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation.
Defendants moved for partial summary judgment arguing (inter alia) that an appraisal opinion cannot ground negligent misrepresentation, that Bank did not justifiably rely, and that the claim was time-barred.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment for defendants; the Alabama Supreme Court reviewed only the negligent-misrepresentation ruling on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an appraisal opinion can support negligent misrepresentation	Appraisals are actionable under Fisher/Restatement §552 when prepared for and relied on by the client	Appraisal value is mere opinion and not a factual basis for misrepresentation	Opinion can be actionable when supplied for guidance and relied upon; TKC’s appraisal may support the claim
Whether Bank justifiably relied on TKC’s appraisal in making the loan	Bank produced deposition testimony that the appraisal affected the loan decision	Defendants argued Bank didn’t rely or should have discovered problems earlier	Bank presented substantial evidence of reliance (trial issue)
Whether the negligent-misrepresentation claim is barred by the statute of limitations	Accrual occurred on default/when Bank discovered facts; discovery rule applies	Accrual occurred when Bank approved the loan or when concerns arose pre-default	Accrual date is a factual question for jury; summary judgment on statute-bar grounds improper
Whether summary judgment was proper on merits / discovery-rule questions	Factual disputes remain as to duty, reliance, and accrual	Defendants asserted no duty to Bank as to individual appraisers and no actionable representation	Court reversed partial summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings

Zanaty Realty, Inc. v. Williams, 935 So.2d 1163 (Ala. 2005) (recognizes appraiser liability under limited third‑party duty principles)
Fisher v. Comer Plantation, Inc., 772 So.2d 455 (Ala. 2000) (adopts Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 for appraiser negligent‑misrepresentation liability)
Foremost Ins. Co. v. Parham, 693 So.2d 409 (Ala. 1997) (fraud accrual and reasonable‑reliance standard discussion)
Auto‑Owners Ins. Co. v. Abston, 822 So.2d 1187 (Ala. 2001) (clarifies when fraud accrues under discovery rule)
Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Kendrick, 810 So.2d 645 (Ala. 2001) (accrual is for jury when facts disputed; summary‑judgment accrual only if one conclusion)
Brushwitz v. Ezell, 757 So.2d 423 (Ala. 2000) (discusses appraisal statements as opinions and limits on suppression/misrepresentation claims)
Kaye v. Pawnee Constr. Co., 680 F.2d 1360 (11th Cir. 1982) (opinion‑vs‑fact analysis; opinion can be actionable when recipient was ignorant and invited reliance)