Case Title: Investment Properties, Inc. v Lyttle

Citation: 169 Vt. 487, 739 A.2d 1222

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-08-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Investment Properties, Inc. v. Lyttle (98-050); 169 Vt. 487; 739 A.2d 1222

[Filed 27-Aug-1999]

       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. 98-050

Investment Properties, Inc.,	                      Supreme Court
James B. Foster, and Pizzagalli
Construction Company
	                                              On Appeal from
     v.		                                      Chittenden Superior Court

Jonathan Lyttle, Dennis Keefe,	                      November Term, 1998
Lyttle & Keefe Architects, Inc., 
and Keefe Associates, Inc.

Shireen Avis Fisher, J.

       John Davis Buckley and Jeffrey W. White of Theriault & Joslin, P.C.,
  Montpelier,  for Plaintiffs-Appellants Investment Properties, Inc. and
  Foster.

       Allan R. Keyes of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, for
  Plaintiff-Appellant Pizzagalli Construction Co. 

       Michael B. Clapp, Burlington, for Defendants-Appellees.

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

       JOHNSON, J.   Plaintiffs appeal an order of the superior court
  granting summary  judgment for defendants on the majority of plaintiffs'
  claims. (FN1)  Plaintiffs are Investment  Properties Incorporated (IPI)
  (the project owner of the Overlake Condominium project), James

 

  Foster (IPI's agent), and Pizzagalli (the general contractor for the
  project).  Plaintiffs sued  defendant architects in a variety of capacities
  under theories of negligence, intentional  misrepresentation, negligent
  misrepresentation, and breach of implied and express warranties  arising
  from a failed attempt to correct a problem with deteriorating subfloors in
  the  condominium project.  We affirm in part and reverse and remand in
  part.

       "[S]ummary judgment is appropriate only when the record clearly shows
  that there is no  genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is
  entitled to judgment as a matter of law."   Bacon v. Lascelles, 165 Vt.
  214, 218,