Lane Supply, Inc. sued W. H. Ferguson & Sons, Inc. and Premier Petroleum, Inc. asserting claims arising out of Lane’s work in supplying materials and labor in a project to “rebrand” 25 gasoline retail outlets. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ferguson and Premier. On appeal, Lane argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Ferguson and Premier on its quantum meruit and promissory estoppel claims. We disagree and affirm. Summary judgment is proper where the movant shows no genuine issue of material fact exists and entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law. A defendant carries this burden by demonstrating the absence of evidence as to one essential element of plaintiff’s case. Should the defendant do so, the plaintiff cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. Citations and punctuation omitted. Jackson v. K-Mart Corp. , 242 Ga. App. 274, 275 529 SE2d 404 2000. See OCGA § 9-11-56 c. Our review of the grant of summary judgment is de novo, and “we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Citation omitted. Ledford v. Smith , 274 Ga. App. 714, 715 618 SE2d 627 2005. So viewed, the evidence shows that appellee Ferguson is a wholesale fuel supplier. In that capacity, Ferguson buys gasoline from Motiva Enterprises, LLC, which owns the Shell brand, and sells the fuel to independent service stations.
In November 2002, Ferguson entered into a “Fast Fusion Enrollment Agreement” with Motiva to convert 25 retail service stations to the Shell brand. Ferguson owned one of the stations to be converted, whereas the other stations were owned by independent third parties.
