617 So.2d at 657. See Moody v. State ex rel. Payne, 351 So.2d 547, 551 (Ala.1977) (“Where the amount of damages is an issue, as here, the recognized rule of law in Alabama is that no appeal will lie from a judgment which does not adjudicate that issue by ascertainment of the amount of those damages.”). See also Grantham v. Vanderzyl, 802 So.2d 1077, 1080 (Ala.2001) (“Damages are only one portion of a claim to vindicate a legal right, even though the damages claimed may consist of several elements.”); Ex parte Simmons, 791 So.2d 371, 381 (Ala.2000) (“Rule 54(b) applies only to entire claims, not to orders relating to the recoverability of some, but not all, of the damages a party may be seeking as the result of a claim.”); and Haynes v. Alfa Fin. Corp., 730 So.2d 178, 181 (Ala.1999) (<HOLDING>). Like the orders at issue in McGowin and
holding that dismissal of some but not all claims or parties not immediately appealable absent rule 54b certification holding that entry of final judgment on a claim in a multiparty action pursuant to rule 54b should clearly articulate the reasons and factors underlying the decision to grant 54b certification holding rule 54b certification invalid because unaccompanied by any statement of reasons and factors underlying trial courts decision to grant certification holding that the rule 54b certification at issue was ineffective where the order addressed only the question of what species of damages haynes might recover if he succeeded at trial on one of his substantive claims holding that rule 54b certification order should contain specific findings setting forth reasons for certification