Opinion ID: 2584198
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion for Summary Judgment as to All Claims

Text: On January 8, 2004, DuPont filed a motion for summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs' claims. Relying on this court's answers to the questions certified by the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i in Matsuura v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 102 Hawai`i 149, 73 P.3d 687 (2003) [hereinafter, Matsuura I ],another Benlate settlement fraud actionDuPont argued, inter alia, that summary judgment was proper for the non-fraud claims inasmuch as this court, in Matsuura I, determined that a party is not immune from liability for civil damages based upon that party's fraud engaged in during prior litigation proceedings. Id. at 162, 73 P.3d at 700. [5] DuPont, thus, maintained that: Since it is now clear in Hawai`i that, absent fraud, immunity exists for any alleged misconduct engaged in during prior litigation,  . . . DuPont therefore is immune from all of [the p]laintiffs' non-fraud claims because these claims are based on allegations of misconduct engaged in during prior litigation such as improper discovery responses, false statements of counsel, etc. (Emphasis in original.) Moreover, DuPont also argued that it was entitled to summary judgment on the fraud-based claims inasmuch as no rational jury could conclude that these [p]laintiffs reasonably believed the truth of DuPont's alleged misrepresentation. (Emphasis added.) In determining whether the plaintiffs are precluded as a matter of law from bringing a cause of action for fraudulent inducement to settle, this court in Matsuura I clarif[ied] that, under Hawai`i law, to prevail on a claim of fraudulent inducement, [the] plaintiffs must prove that their reliance upon a defendant's representations was reasonable.  Id. at 163, 73 P.3d at 701 (emphases added). [6] DuPont argued that: In their product liability cases, where [the plaintiffs sued DuPont for millions of dollars claiming Benlate was defective, it was [the p]laintiffs' financial interest to claim they knew/believed DuPont's statements concerning the nature of and/or non-existence of [a]dverse Benlate [scientific d]ata were false, and that they knew/believed that [a]dverse Benlate [scientific d]ata existed. And, as the record of this [c]ourt demonstrates, that is exactly what [the p]laintiffs claimedconsistently, repeatedly, and vehemently. In this case, however, where [the p]laintiffs have sued DuPont for millions of dollars claiming they were defrauded in their product liability settlements, it is in [the p]laintiffs' financial interest to claim they did NOT know/believe DuPont's statements concerning the nature of and/or non-existence of [a]dverse Benlate [scientific d]ata were false, and that they did NOT know/believe that [a]dverse Benlate [scientific d]ata existed. And, as clear from [the p]laintiffs' [c]omplaint and interrogatory answers, that is exactly what they are claimingconsistently, repeatedly, and vehemently. (Emphases and capitalization in original.) On January 16, 2004, the plaintiffs filed their memorandum in opposition to the motion. A hearing was held on January 26, 2004, wherein the circuit court orally denied the motion to the extent that there's a genuine issue of material fact as to the reasonableness of the fraud claims. The circuit court, however, granted the motion as to the claims of intentional and negligent spoliation of evidence (Counts 1 and 2), intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (Count 7), and violation of constitutional rights (Count 9). A written order was entered on February 25, 2004, granting in part and denying in part the motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the circuit court granted summary judgment as to the non-fraud claims, i.e., Counts 1, 2, 7, and 9, and denied summary judgment as to the fraud and deceit claims, i.e., fraud (Count 3), fraudulent misrepresentation (Count 4), negligent misrepresentation (Count 5), and non-disclosure (Count 6). The circuit court also ruled that civil conspiracy (Count 8) and exemplary damages (Count 10) are not separate counts, but are merely derivative to [the p]laintiffs' remaining claims.