Case Title: Courbat v. Dahana Ranch, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-08-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

=-~ 000

 

LISA COURBAT and STEVEN COURBAT, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs.
DAHANA RANCH, Defendant-Appellee,
and

JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE ASSOCIATIONS 1-10, DOE
PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE ENTITIES 1710, and
DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-5, Defendants.

NO. 25151 a 3

APPEAL FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT
(Civ. No. 01-1-0049)

AUGUST 3, 2006

"Yuva 1 YOON

  

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

LE: WY C- 90

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA AND DUFFY, J.

upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration
filed by the plaintiffs-appellants Lisa and Steven Courbat on
July 20, 2006, requesting that this court review its published
opinion filed on July 10, 2006,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted in part
and thet the opinion filed July 10, 2006 be amended as follows
(deleted material is bracketed and new material is in bold):

(1) The last sentence on page 11: The Courbats
maintain, Anter alia, that the practice of withholding the waiver
had “the capacity or tendency to mislead” customers, thereby
satisfying this court’s test for a deceptive trade practice as
articulated in State ex rel, Bronster v. United States Stee)

Corps, 82 Hawai'i 32, $0, 919 P.2d 294, 312 (1996).

 

RAR

aad
 

(2) The heading for section 122.B on page 1

8, 2 on

Of The Waiver Requivenent Was [Al An Unfair Or
Deceptive Trade Practice

(3) The heading for section 127

 

2 on page 20:
2. Ifthe Trier Of Fact Determines That The
Nondisclosure OF The Waiver Was Not [Al An Unfair
Validly Waived Their Negligence Claims.

(4) The last sentence of section III.B.2.a on page 25:
Accordingly, we hold that, if the trier of fact determines that
the nondisclosure of the waiver was not (a) an unfair or
deceptive trade practice, the Courbats’ wavier was valid.

‘The motion for reconsideration is otherwise denied,
without prejudice to filing a request for fees and costs pursuant
to HRAP Rule 39 (2006).

‘The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide a copy of
this order to the parties and notify the publishing agencies of
the changes. The Clerk of the Court is further instructed to
distribute copies of this order of amendment to those who

received the previously filed opinion.
on the motior
Andrew 5. Iwashita
for the plaintiffs-appellants Apri
Lisa and Steven Courbat
Basse Oud re

 
‘STATEMENT OF NO POSITION
For the reasons stated in our dissenting opinion, we
take no position on the motion for reconsideration of the

published opinion filed on July 10, 2006.

Pr

Come Duddy he