Case Title: Martineau v. Guertin

Citation: 170 Vt. 415, 751 A.2d 776

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-03-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
Martineau v. Guertin (98-181); 170 Vt. 415; 751 A.2d 776

[Filed 24-Mar-2000]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter  of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any  errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 98-181

Micheline M. Martineau	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.		                                 Chittenden Superior Court

Normand Guertin	                                 January Term, 1999

Linda Levitt, J.

Philip C. Woodward of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Burlington, and John A. 
  Baglini of Higgins & Slattery, Providence, Rhode Island, for 
  Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Thomas E. McCormick and Thomas P. Simon of McCormick, Fitzpatrick, Kasper & 
  Burchard, P.C., Burlington, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       MORSE, J.   Micheline Martineau, executrix of the estate of her
  deceased husband Jean  Martineau, and other family members appeal the
  superior court's summary judgment  applying  Quebec law and dismissing
  their wrongful death suit.  We conclude that the superior court should 
  have allowed plaintiffs' suit to proceed under Vermont law; accordingly, we
  reverse the court's  decision and remand the matter for further
  proceedings.

       The material facts are not in dispute.  In October 1994, Jean
  Martineau and defendant  Normand Guertin were Canadian citizens legally
  domiciled in the Province of Quebec.  For the  preceding seven years,
  Martineau had lived and worked as a subcontractor in Connecticut 
  performing carpentry work for a general contractor.  He had a valid "green
  card" that allowed  him to work in the United States, but was not a
  year-round resident of Connecticut.  Defendant  did not have a green card,
  but worked and resided with Martineau in Connecticut at the time of  the
  accident.  The families of both men, including their wives, lived in Quebec
  year round.

 

       On October 31, 1994, following a visit with their wives, Martineau and
  defendant left  Quebec separately but rendezvoused in Swanton, Vermont,
  from where they intended to drive to  Connecticut in Martineau's car, which
  had been registered and insured in Connecticut.  With  Martineau driving,
  the two men headed for Connecticut.  In White River Junction, Vermont, 
  defendant took over the driving.  Shortly thereafter, defendant lost
  control of the car and struck  a guardrail while traveling in the
  southbound lane of Interstate 91 near Hartford, Vermont.   Martineau died
  at the scene of the accident.

       Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action in Chittenden Superior Court
  in May 1996.  In  response, defendant stated as one of his affirmative
  defenses that Quebec law governed and  foreclosed the action.  In March
  1998, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment,  contending that
  Quebec's no-fault system of compensation provided the exclusive remedy for 
  plaintiffs, thus barring their wrongful death claim.  The superior court
  granted the motion after  applying the most-significant-relationship test
  recently adopted by this Court, ruling that Quebec  law governed the
  parties' dispute, and that Quebec's Automobile Insurance Act's exclusive-
  remedy provision barred plaintiffs' wrongful death action.  On appeal,
  plaintiffs contend that  Vermont law should govern, and that, in any event,
  Quebec law does not bar plaintiffs' suit.

       In reviewing an order granting summary judgment, we apply the same
  standard as the trial  court: summary judgment is appropriate when there
  are no genuine issues of material fact and the  moving party is entitled to
  judgment as a matter of law.  See Sabia v. Neville, 165 Vt. 515, 523,