for all repairs, improvements and/or defects in [the] property.” (Emphasis added.) Under the contract, the Blaylocks had no duty to disclose the water damage. The Carys cite Fennell Realty Co. v. Martin, 529 So.2d 1003, 1005 (Ala.1988), for the proposition that a duty to disclose arises, despite “as is” language in a sales contract, if the seller knows of a material defect affecting the health or safety of the buyer that is not known to or readily observable by the buyer. In this case, however, the Carys admit that they knew of the water damage defect before they purchased the house. The inspection report specifically stated that the house had suffered water damage. Thus, Blaylocks, the sellers, had no duty to disclose the water damage. See Compass Point, 641 So.2d at 255-56 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Carys failed to show that a
holding that the seller had no noncontractual duty to disclose water damage to armslength buyers of residential real estate holding no liability existed under the circumstances holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that the defendant obtained legal title to property where he obtained the vehicle under a lease arrangement by fraudulent representation holding that no duty to disclose water damage existed where purchasers obtained property under an as is contract