Title: Beecher v. Stratton Corporation

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Beecher v. Stratton Corporation (98-382); 170 Vt. 137; 743 A.2d 1093

[Filed 19-Nov-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. 98-382

Wade Beecher	                                 Supreme Court

	                                         On Appeal from
     v.		                                 Windham Superior Court

Stratton Corporation	                         May Term, 1999
d/b/a Stratton Mountain Ski Resort

John P. Meaker, J.

       Theodore A. Parisi, Jr., Castleton, and Martha M. Smyrski of Paterson
  & Walke, P.C.,          Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

       John A. Serafino of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, for
  Defendant-Appellee.

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

       AMESTOY, C.J.   Plaintiff, who sued defendant Stratton Mountain
  Corporation after  being injured while skiing at its resort, appeals the
  superior court's summary judgment ruling  barring his suit under the
  applicable one-year statute of limitations.  See 12 V.S.A. § 513 (action 
  to recover for injuries sustained while participating in sport of skiing
  shall be commenced within  one year after cause of action accrues).  In
  granting summary judgment to defendant, the court  rejected plaintiff's
  contention that statements made by defendant's insurance adjuster precluded 
  defendant from invoking the statute of limitations.  We find no error in
  the court's refusal to  apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel or
  equitable tolling, and thus affirm its judgment.

       Plaintiff, a Connecticut resident, was injured while skiing at
  Stratton Mountain on  January 20, 1996.  He retained a Connecticut lawyer,
  who began negotiations with defendant's  insurance adjuster shortly after
  the accident.  In October 1996, a Vermont attorney took over  plaintiff's
  case and resumed settlement negotiations with the adjuster.  According to
  plaintiff, at  some point before the limitations period expired, the
  adjuster asked plaintiff's attorney to 

 

  refrain from filing suit until the conclusion of settlement negotiations. 
  Later, in a January 14,  1997 telephone conversation with plaintiff's
  attorney, the adjuster insisted on plaintiff submitting  to an independent
  medical examination before negotiations could be concluded.  Plaintiff
  agreed.  On March 4, 1997, the adjuster informed plaintiff's attorney that
  he had found two doctors in  Connecticut who could perform an independent
  examination.  On March 10, 1997, plaintiff's  attorney informed the
  adjuster that the statute of limitations had run and asked him to agree to
  an  extension until May 1, 1997.  The adjuster refused and closed the case.

       On March 11, 1997 plaintiff filed his negligence suit in superior
  court.  Defendant moved  for summary judgment based on plaintiff's failure
  to file his suit within the one-year limitations  period.  The superior
  court held an evidentiary hearing on March 4, 1998 to consider plaintiff's 
  claim that defendant should be estopped from asserting the statute of
  limitations.  Plaintiff's  attorney and the adjuster testified at the
  hearing.  The court viewed the evidence most favorably  to plaintiff and
  accepted as true the testimony of plaintiff's attorney that the adjuster
  asked him to  refrain from filing suit until negotiations were concluded,
  and that, when asked if there would be  any statute-of-limitations problem,
  the adjuster indicated that he was unaware of any such  problem. 
  Nevertheless, the court rejected plaintiff's claims of equitable estoppel
  and equitable  tolling, concluding that plaintiff's attorney was at least
  as aware of the one-year limitations  period as the adjuster, and that the
  attorney had not acted reasonably in failing to file suit without 
  obtaining a promise from the adjuster that defendant would waive or extend
  the statute of  limitations.  On appeal, plaintiff argues that the superior
  court erred by resolving issues of  material fact and by refusing to apply
  either the doctrine of equitable estoppel or the doctrine of  equitable
  tolling.

                                     I.

       We address the latter two issues first to facilitate our discussion. 
  Plaintiff contends that  the doctrine of equitable estoppel precludes
  defendant from invoking the applicable statute of  limitations under the
  circumstances of this case.  The doctrine of equitable estoppel seeks to 

 

  promote fair dealing and good faith by preventing "one party from asserting
  rights which may  have existed against another party who in good faith has
  changed his or her position in reliance  upon earlier representations." 
  Fisher v. Poole, 142 Vt. 162, 168,