Title: Courchesne v. Town of Weathersfield

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Courchesne v. Town of Weathersfield (2002-453); 175 Vt. 585; 830 A.2d 118

2003 VT 62

[Filed 30-Jun-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 62

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-453

                              APRIL TERM, 2003

  Andrew Courchesne and	               }	APPEALED FROM:
  AJC Construction, Inc.	       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Windsor Superior Court
                                       }	
  Town of Weathersfield	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 618-12-00 WrCv

                                                Trial Judge:  Alan W. Cook

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Plaintiffs appeal the decision of the Windsor Superior Court
  granting summary judgment to defendant Town of Weathersfield, a Vermont
  municipality, on plaintiffs' claims that the Town acted illegally and
  tortiously interfered with a business relationship.  The court determined
  that the Town was entitled to sovereign immunity for its actions because it
  did not exceed the scope of its authority when it leased a gravel pit and
  entered into a gravel pit management agreement.  We affirm.  

       ¶  2.  Plaintiff Andrew Courchesne was, at all relevant times, the
  sole shareholder and sole employee of plaintiff A.J.C. Construction, Inc.,
  a construction and trucking company engaged in the hauling of sand for
  winter road maintenance.  This case arises from plaintiffs' contention that
  as a result of the actions of the Town of Weathersfield, plaintiffs were no
  longer engaged to haul sand from Weathersfield to the Town of Springfield
  sand shed.  
   
       ¶  3.  During the 1997-1998 winter season, the owners of the Maple
  Street Gravel Pit in Weathersfield hired plaintiffs to haul winter sand
  from their gravel pit to the Town of Springfield. Springfield made all
  payments for the sand directly to the owners who in turn compensated
  plaintiffs for the hauling.  For more than one year prior to the winter of
  1997-1998, the Town of Weathersfield was engaged in negotiations with the
  owners of the Maple Street Gravel Pit for the exclusive rights to extract
  sand, gravel, rock, and any other by-product from the pit.  The Town wanted
  to secure a source of gravel for highway purposes so that it did not have
  to continue buying gravel from a third party.  On October 14, 1998, the
  owners of the pit executed a Sand and Gravel Extraction Agreement that
  granted the Town of Weathersfield the exclusive right to extract sand,
  gravel, rock and any other by-product from the Maple Street pit for
  twenty-five years in consideration of the payment of $250,000, which was
  subject to a ratification vote.  On March 2, 1999, the Town's legal voters
  approved an appropriation of $25,000 per year for ten years to the owners
  of the pit in exchange for the extraction rights.  

       ¶  4.  While the Town of Weathersfield was engaged in negotiations
  with the pit owners, the Town became aware of the need to extract a great
  deal of sand to get to the gravel.  The Town was not interested in
  obtaining this sand, however, because it was of a low grade and the Town
  already had a supply of higher quality sand from a sandpit on Route 5 in
  Weathersfield.  Because the Town did not need or want the sand, the Town
  attempted to contract with Springfield to supply Springfield's winter sand
  from the Maple Street pit.  Despite early negotiations between the Town and
  Springfield, the Springfield Selectboard did not enter into an agreement
  with the Town regarding the sand supply.  

       ¶  5.  Once the Town learned that Springfield would not obtain the
  sand, the Town entered into the Maple Street Gravel Pit Management
  Agreement with Jarvis and Sons, Inc. so that it would not have to hire
  employees to work at the pit.  Under the management agreement, Jarvis
  agreed to manage the pit in compliance with all permits for three years and
  to pay the Town $30,000 in exchange for the right to sell all sand and
  limited quantities of gravel.  Springfield eventually purchased winter sand
  from Jarvis in early 1999, which Jarvis hauled from the Maple Street pit to
  the Springfield sand shed.  

       ¶  6.  Springfield also continued to purchase sand from a different
  supplier, which plaintiffs hauled for the remainder of the 1998-99 winter
  season.  At no time did the Town of Weathersfield ever have a contractual
  relationship with Springfield for the supply or hauling of winter sand. 
  Springfield made all payments directly to Jarvis for sand from the Maple
  Street pit during the 1998-99 season.  Springfield did not, at any time,
  have an exclusive arrangement with a supplier, including plaintiffs, for
  the hauling of winter sand.     

       ¶  7.  In December 2000, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against
  defendant Town alleging that the Town illegally interfered with their
  contractual relations with Springfield.  Both parties filed motions for
  summary judgment, and on September 6, 2002, the court granted summary
  judgment to the Town on the basis of sovereign immunity.  This appeal
  followed.    

       ¶  8.  In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this Court applies
  the same standard used by the trial court.  Peters v. State, 161 Vt. 582,
  582,