Title: Gilman v. Maine Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Gilman v. Maine Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (2002-170); 175 Vt. 554; 830 A.2d 71

2003 VT 55

[Filed 03-Jun-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 55

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-170

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2002

  Brad Gilman and Lisa Emerson	       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Orleans Superior Court
                                       }	
  Maine Mutual Fire Insurance Co.,     }
  Conley Country and Michael Conley,   }	DOCKET NO. 257-10-01 Oscv
  and Bruce Bjornlund	

                                                Trial Judge: Dennis R. Pearson

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

       ¶  1.  The genesis of this suit was a fire in the newly purchased
  home of appellants Brad Gilman and Lisa Emerson.  On October 14, 1998, Brad
  Gilman purchased a home in Derby, Vermont, from Anja Coolbeth.  Ms.
  Coolbeth's realtor, appellee Michael Conley of Conley Country, attended the
  closing with a limited power of attorney signed by Ms. Coolbeth, enabling
  him to "execute and deliver" on her behalf "any and all documents required
  to consummate the sale of real estate."  Appellee Attorney Bruce Bjornlund
  represented Gilman in this transaction.  Within eight weeks of purchase, on
  December 5, 1998, a fire started in the home, apparently caused by a candle
  burning too close to curtains, and caused extensive fire and smoke damage,
  as well as physical injuries to appellant Lisa Emerson.  Although there
  were smoke detectors present in the home at the time of purchase,
  appellants contended that the smoke detectors failed to function as
  intended during the fire.  Appellants filed claims sounding in contract and
  tort against appellees Conley, Conley Country, Bjornlund, and later, their
  insurer, appellee Maine Mutual Fire Insurance Company.  The superior court
  dismissed appellants' claims, and they now appeal that dismissal.  We
  affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with
  this order.

       ¶  2.  In 1998, Maine Mutual issued Gilman a homeowner's fire
  protection insurance policy.  After the fire, Gilman notified Maine Mutual
  of the fire and attendant property loss.  On December 23, 1998, Gilman
  filed a sworn statement of proof of loss and personal property inventory
  enumerating the structural damage, the destroyed personal property items,
  and their value.  Maine Mutual paid Gilman a total of $58,389.07 for
  structural damage and repair, and personal property loss.  The total amount
  paid by Maine Mutual was greater than the amount Gilman claimed in his
  sworn proof of loss because additional living expenses and contractor costs
  were added by the adjuster as part of the claims process.  
   
       ¶  3.  Appellants brought suit on October 9, 2001.  They claimed
  that Conley Country, Michael Conley and Bruce Bjornlund failed to comply
  with or confirm compliance with 9 V.S.A. §§ 2881-2883, Vermont's smoke
  detector statute, and that this failure constituted negligence and/or
  breach of contract, which resulted in physical and property damage. 
  Appellants also asserted a claim of "bad faith" against Maine Mutual,
  alleging that Maine Mutual violated its "obligations of good faith and fair
  dealing in adjusting the fire loss, [and] failing to pay plaintiff what was
  due and owing as a result of the fire."

       ¶  4.  Pursuant to V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), Conley Country and Michael
  Conley moved to dismiss appellants' suit for failure to state a claim upon
  which relief can be granted.  The trial court, by decision entered on March
  21, 2002, granted the motion to dismiss, finding it "extremely doubtful"
  that §§ 2881-2883 creates a private cause of action, but ruling that, even
  if it did, the statute would apply only to a transferor of property, and
  not to a seller's representative with a power of attorney.  The court also
  noted that Conley "never had title to property."

       ¶  5.  Attorney Bjornlund also filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
  V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).  The court granted this motion, holding that appellants'
  complaint failed to state a viable claim against Bjornlund because §§
  2881-2883 created no private cause of action, and that none could be
  implied.  The court further found that there were no facts alleged
  suggesting any legal duty Bjornlund owed to appellants relative to the
  smoke detectors and, therefore, no facts supporting appellants' negligence
  claim.  Finally, the court found that there were no facts alleged to
  establish any contractual undertaking by Bjornlund regarding the smoke
  detectors.

       ¶  6.  Maine Mutual filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing
  that appellants' suit was not commenced within one year of the date of loss
  as required by the operative insurance policy.  The court granted Maine
  Mutual's motion and held that appellants failed to raise a genuine issue of
  fact as to whether the parties were still negotiating with Maine Mutual
  before expiration of the limitations period.  Appellants appeal from these
  decisions. 

       ¶  7.  We begin with appellants' challenge to the trial court's
  grant of summary judgment in favor of the Maine Mutual.  When reviewing a
  grant of summary judgment, this Court applies the same standard of review
  as the trial court: summary judgment is appropriate when the record before
  the court clearly shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material
  fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  City
  of Burlington v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 163 Vt. 124, 127,