09 -3 68 8- cv

De l M on aco v. Green UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R ul i ngs by s um m ary or der do not have prec edent i al ef f ect . C i t at i on t o a s um m ary or der f i l ed on or af

t er January 1 , 2 0 0 7 , i s p e r m itte d a n d is g o v e r n e d b y F e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e llate P r o c e d u r e 3 2 .1 a n d th is c o u r t’s L o c a l R u le 32. 1. 1. W hen ci t i ng a s um m ary or der i n a docum ent f i l ed w i t h t hi s court , a part y m ust ci t e e i t her t he Federal A pp en dix or a n el ectron i c d ataba se (w i t h t he n otat i on “su m m ary or de r”). A p arty cit i ng a sum m ary ord er m ust se r v e a c o p y o f it on a n y p a r ty n o t r e p r e se n te d b y c o u n se l. 1 At a stated t erm of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circui t, held at t he 2 Daniel Patri ck Moynihan United St ates Courthouse , 500 Pearl Street, in t he City of New York, on 3 the 8 day of July, two thousand ten.

th 4 5 PRESENT : 6 7 AMALYA L . KEARSE , 8 PIERRE N. LE VAL, 9 DEBRAANN LIVING STON 10 Ci rcu it J ud ges . 11 12 13 14 AMADEO D EL MONAC O, PATRIOT MUTUAL 15 INSURAN CE COMPA NY, 16 Plain tif fs- Ap pe lla nts , 17 18 -v. - No . 0 9-3 68 8-c v 19 20 JAMES GREEN , doing business a s Jim Green & Sons 21 Contracting, J EFFREY MISER OCCHI 22 De fen da nts -A

pp ellee s. 23 24 25 S TE P HE N H. L A SH , Lash & Assoc ia tes , Boston, MA (John H. 26 Bloomer, Jr., McClallen & B loomer, R utland, VT; Kevin P. Candon, 27 Rutland , V T; on thebr ief ), for Plain tif

fs- Ap pe lla nts . 28 29 RI CHAR D H. WAD HA MS , J R ., Pi erso n W ad ham s Q uinn Y ate s & 30 Coffrin, Burlington, VT, for De fen da nt- Ap pe lle e Ja mes Gree n . 31 32 P AUL S. G I LLI ES , T arr ant, G ill ies , M err im an& R ich ard so n, Mo nt33 pelier, VT, for Defendant- Appellee Jef

frey Miserocchi .2

1 Ap pe al f

rom anAu gu st 5 , 2 00 9 ju dg m ent of the Unit ed

S tat es Di str ict

Co urt of the Di str ict 2 of Verm ont (Murt ha, J. ). UPON DU E CO NSIDERAT ION, it is hereby ORDERED, A DJUDGED , 3 AND DE CREED that the judgment of the di strictcourt be AFFIRMED IN PART and VA CATED 4 IN PART. 5 Plaintiffs-appel lants Amadeo Del Monaco and Pa tr io t Mutual Insura nce Company 6 (“plaint iffs”) appeal fr om a n August 5, 2009 judgment of the United Stat es Distri ct Court of the 7 Districtof Verm ont (Murt ha, J. ), following a jury verdi ct, i n favor of defendants James Green and 8 Jeffrey Miserocchi . W e assume the part ies ’ f am ili arity with the under lying facts, proc edural his tory, 9 and specificat ion of the issues on appeal. 10 Th e d istric t court’ s d ete rm inatio n th at the re w as i ns uf fi cie nt e vid en ce o f a

co ntr act be tw een 11 the parti es and

th at the tr an sac tio n wa s pre do m inantl y fo r s erv ice s an d its re su ltant dis m iss al of 12 bre ach

of warrantie s, str ict

pro du ct l iab ili ty, an d c on sum er f rau d c lai m s w as, alt

ho ug h n ot s o 13 de no ted , a

summ ary judg m ent rul ingan d w e th ere fo re r ev iewit deno vo . Se e No ra Be verages, Inc . 14 v. P err ier

Gro up o f A m. , In c. , 16 4 F .3 d 7 36 , 7 42 (2d Ci r. 1 99 8); cf. Fab-Tech, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont 15 De Nemours & Co. , 3 11 F . Ap p’x4 43 , 4 45 (2d Ci r. 2 00 9). W e re vie w r

uli ng s as to t

he adm iss ibi lity 16 of evidence at tr ial for abuse of discr etion. United States v. Will iams , 5 85 F.3d 703, 707 (2d Ci r. 17 2009). 18 Pl aintif

fs argue that th e d istric t co urt err ed in fin din g a s a m att er o f l awthat th ere wa s 19 in s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e o f

a c o n tr a c t b e tw e e nth e p art ie s an d th at th e c o n tr a c to r’ s i nv o ice pro ff ere d 20 during discove ry was inadmissible to a llege such a c ontract. We agree. Under Vermont law, the 21 ex ist en ce o f a

bin din g a gre em ent be tw een the part ies contai nin g a ll m ate ria l an d e sse nti al t erm s is 22 a q

ue sti on of f act dep en din g in part on

the re aso na

ble inf ere nc es th at m aybe drawn fro m the fa cts3

1 of the case. Quenneville v . Buttolph , 833 A.2d 1263, 1270 (Vt. 2003) . Moreover, t he intent of the 2 parti es t o b e b ou

nd , a lso a q

ue sti on of fa ct, de ter

m ine s whe the r any p rel im inary a gre em ent is 3 binding. Bi

xle r v. Bu lla rd, 769 A.2d 690, 694 (Vt. 2001). The co nt ra ct or ’s i nvoice contai ned a 4 pri ce t erm

an d a rou ghoutl ine of t

he wo rk t o b e d on e; the pri ce w as p aid as s pe cif ied an d th e w ork 5 pe rf

orm ed m os tlyin a cco rdanc e wi th the inv oic e, altho ug h m od if ied byfu rth er d isc us sio ns be tw een 6 De l M on aco , Gr een , an d Miserocc hi. Se e Ba ch li v . H olt , 200 A.2d 263, 267 (Vt. 1964) (“An 7 acc ep tan ce o f a

pro po sal m aybe acc om

pli sh ed byconduct as ef

fe cti ve as t

ho ug h d on e v erb all y 8 wh ere it a

pp ear s th e ac ts o f t

he parti es c on fo rm

to t he ter m s p rop os ed .” ) W e cann ot s ayas a m att er 9 of lawthat th e par

tie s did not inten d to be bound

by the term s of

the invo ice an d th at n o c ontra ct w as 10 fo rm ed . Ajur

y c ou ld f ind that th e ter

m s of the al leg ed

contra ct in clu de d anexp res s un de rtakin g (s et 11 forth in the cont ractor’ s invoice) , moreover, to do the work “in a subs tantial workmanlike m anner,” 12 an d th at t

his co mm itm ent w as b rea ch ed byde fe nd ants’ ne gli ge nt c onstructi on. W e th ere fo re 13 conclude thatthe distr ict courterred in di smissing Counts III and VII I. 14 W e agree with t he d is tr ictcourt, however, t hat the Vermont Uniform C omm ercial Code 15 (“UCC”) is inappli cable to t his contra ct because i t was primarily for services and that Counts V and 16 X w ere the ref

ore pro pe rly

dis m iss ed . “ [W ]h ere , a s h ere , a trans act ion

co ntains elem ents o f b oth 17 sales and se rvice, appl ication of the UCC . . . turns on whethe r the tr ansaction ‘ predominantly,’ or 18 ess entia lly , rel ate s to goods or servic es. ” La me ll L um be r C or p. v. Ne ws tress I

nt' l, I nc . , 938 A.2d 19 1215 , 12 22 ( Vt . 2007). The language of the agr eement and the circumstances of its making and 20 perfo rma nc e are the pr imary factors in determining which category predominates. Id. at 1223. 21 He re, the pe rf

orm an ce o f t

he co ntr act

ind icates that

the c ontra ct w as e sse nti all y f or s erv ice s: Gree n 22 performe d forDe l Monaco a var iety of servic es, includi ng extensive c onstructi on on his roof,4

1 expanding his dec k significantl y, and instal ling the fire pit. Moreove r, t he fire pi t was designed and 2 bu ilt

to D el M on aco ’s s pe cif

icatio ns byMis ero cch i, Gr een ’s su bc ontra cto r, m

uc h li ke the co nc ret e 3 kiln in La me ll

was desi gned and bui lt by the cont ractors . See id. (“The terms of the contractand the 4 circumstances of its perform ance thus dem onstrate that the purchase and sale of the co mpon ent 5 mat eri als th em sel ve s, whil e ne ces sar y to the p roj ect , we re inc ide nta l t o the o ve ral l o bjective of 6 de sig nin g, en gin eering , an d ere cti ngthe k iln acc ord ingto t

he plans pro vid ed

byde fe nd ant. Am

ple 7 authorit y supports the conclusion t hat, in such ci rcumstances, the contr act was not subj ect t o the 8 UCC.”). W ith regar d to plainti ffs’ stri ct l iabili ty and consumer fraud claims, Counts IV, VI, IX, and 9 XI , p lai nti ffs argu e th at the se c lai m s sh ou ld b e re ins tat ed be cau se t

he sal e o f t

he fi rep it w as a 10 trans act ion

in g oo ds . A s d isc us sed

ab ov e, we di sagree . Alth ou ghplai nti ff s als o argue in th eir

rep ly 11 bri ef

that it is n ot n ece ssary t o h av e a “ go od ” un de r t he U CC to m aintai n the se cla im s, w e d eem thi s 12 argument w aived because it was not ra ised in the ir opening br ief. JP Morgan Chase Bank v . Altos 13 Hornos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. , 412 F.3d 418, 428 (2d Cir. 2005). 14 Finally, with regard to t he pla intiffs’ ne gligence cl aims, we find that the distr ict courtdid not 15 ab us e it s d isc ret ion in f ind ingina dm iss ibl e a p ort ion of the Natio na l F ire Pr ote cti on As so ciation 16 Co de th at de als w ith“ so lid f ue l-b urn inga

pp lianc es, ” inc lud inglo cat ion , ve nti lat ion, chi mne y 17 co nn ect ion , m ounti ng , and req uis ite cle aranc es. In t

he tab le lis tin g stand ard

clearan ces , the typ es 18 of ap pli an ces given are res ide nti al a pp lianc es; fu

rna ces ; ro om

he ate rs, fi rep lac e st ov es, fi rep lac e 19 inserts, co m

bin ati on s; and

ran ge s. Th e se cti on

als o n ote s th at “ [t ]h ese cle aranc es s ha ll a pp ly t o 20 ap pliances i nstalled i n ro om s th at are l arg e in co m paris on wi th t he siz e o f t

he ap pli an ces .” 21 Although plaint iff argues that the section does not explici tly exclude fir e pit s, whi chare s oli d f ue l22 burning appli ances, it is c lear that the clear ances, which are the most significant part of the secti on,5

1 are meant to apply to an i nternal i nstall at io n. Th e dist rict cour t’s dete rmination to exclude t he 2 evidence from this case, which i nvolves an exte rior ins tallat ion of an appliance not covered by the 3 section, was t herefore not manifestly err oneous. Se e Ca me ro n v . C ityof N ew Yo rk, 598 F.3d 50, 61 4 (2d Cir. 2010). 5 All arguments not otherwis e discussed i n this summ ary order a re found to be moot or without 6 m eri t. F or t

he fo reg oin g re aso ns , th e ju dgm ent of the dis tri ct c ourt i s h ere byVA CA TE D w ith 7 respect t o the dismissal of Cou nt s II I and VII I and AFFIRMED in all otherrespects . W e remand 8 for further proceedi ngs consiste nt with this determination. 9 10 FOR THE COURT : 11 Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk 12 13 14