Opinion ID: 1952749
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failing to Include the Indemnity Argument in the Prebriefing Statement

Text: The accountants argue that plaintiffs' failure to raise the indemnity issue in their prebriefing statement of the case constituted a waiver of this issue on appeal. Article I, Rule 12A of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure required plaintiffs to file a statement of the case with the clerk of the Supreme Court within twenty days of docketing this appeal, containing a summary of the issues proposed to be argued on appeal. The plaintiffs' Rule 12A statement, however, did not identify the Superior Court justice's dismissal of the indemnity claim as one of the issues they proposed to argue on appeal to this Court. Nevertheless, plaintiffs later included this issue in their brief as one of the asserted errors committed by the motion justice. We have repeatedly held, consistent with Article I, Rule 16(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure, that a party's failure to include a particular issue in his, her, or its brief on appeal results in a waiver of that issue. See Roe v. Gelineau, 794 A.2d 476, 482 n. 6 (R.I.2002); Wilkinson v. State Crime Laboratory Commission, 788 A.2d 1129, 1131 n. 1 (R.I.2002). Indeed, Rule 16(a) includes language embodying this rule, providing that Errors not claimed, questions not raised and points not made [in a party's brief] ordinarily will be treated as waived and not considered by the court. We decline, however, to extend this waiver rule to arguments not raised in a party's Rule 12A statement when such arguments are later included in a party's brief or supplemental show-cause statement. [3] Usually, as here, the appellee will have ample opportunity to respond to such arguments. And even though Rule 12A(1) requires the appellant to summarize those issues proposed to be argued on appeal, it conspicuously omits the above-quoted waiver language contained in Rule 16(a). Moreover, the prebriefing conference itself can cause the parties to confront or address new issues, to drop one or more arguments previously raised, or to refocus their appellate submissions to meet the questions, comments, or other problems with the record that may have surfaced for the first time at the conference. See Rule 12A(3). As a result, we hold, plaintiffs have not waived their indemnity arguments, and they are properly before this Court on appeal. We reserve the right, however, in an appropriate case  either on our own motion or on the motion of an appellee  to sanction an appellant for failing to include issues in a prebriefing statement that are later included in a brief or supplemental show-cause statement, especially when they could have and should have been addressed in the prebriefing statement, and to fashion other appropriate relief for an appellee who can show prejudice in such circumstances. But this is not such a case.