¶2I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that the decision of our supreme court inEx parte St. Regis Corp., 535 So.2d 160 (Ala. 1988), is applicable to the case sub judice.
¶3The majority states that, since this case is in the so-called "pipe line," i.e., within our appellate structure, a decision of our supreme court which was announced some seven months after judgment in the case sub judice should be applied here. I disagree.
¶4I am unable, or perhaps unwilling at this point and in this case, to find a trial court in error when it correctly applied well-established case law at the time it rendered its judgment. I would hold that Ex parte St. Regis Corp. did not apply to the case presently before us. I would affirm the trial court judgment as to all matters raised in the appeal in this case.