Opinion ID: 2570261
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence on Estoppel

Text: The superior court found that Tufco was equitably estopped from enforcing the lease's hazardous-materials provision against Penco because Fisher spearheaded th[e] endeavor to obtain the Envirosolve contract. It found that Fisher's actions had amounted to an assertion that Tufco did not object to hazardous-materials storage on its property, that Penco detrimentally relied on this assertion, and that Fisher's subsequent claim of breach was unconscionable. Tufco argues that the record does not support the court's finding of estoppel. A party claiming equitable estoppel must prove four elements: (1) an assertion of a position by word or conduct; (2) reasonable reliance on the assertion; (3) resulting prejudice; and (4) the estoppel will be enforced only to the extent that justice requires. [6] Only the first two elements are disputed here. Tufco argues that Fisher did nothing that could be construed as an assertion that Tufco would not enforce the lease provision regarding hazardous-materials storage. Tufco insists that Fisher's conduct in securing, implementing, and performing the Envirosolve contract cannot reasonably be viewed as an assertion of approval by Tufco, since, in Tufco's view, Fisher was merely doing his job as a Penco employee. Moreover, Tufco argues, Penco could not have reasonably relied on any implied approval given by Fisher, because Fisher notified Penco through conversations with Shedlock that Tufco intended to enforce the hazardous-materials provision. Penco responds that not only did Fisher's actions reflect his acquiescence in the breach, they actually caused the breach. Furthermore, Penco insists, even if Fisher discussed his concerns with Shedlock, this conversation did not put Penco officials on notice of Tufco's intent to enforce the hazardous-materials provision, since the lease expressly required Fisher to give Penco's Hawaii office written notice of any concerns about Penco's compliance. The superior court agreed with Penco, finding that Fisher's actions completely contradicted any conversations that Fisher might have had with Shedlock, that Fisher's and Shedlock's testimony was not believable, and that Fisher took no steps reasonably likely to inform Penco that hazardous materials recovered under the Envirosolve contract could not be stored on Tufco's property. The question at issue, then, is whether the record supports these findings. We hold that it does. The record shows that Tufco, through Fisher, actively helped Penco secure the Envirosolve contract. Fisher participated in a training session put on by Envirosolve to demonstrate the process for recovering and storing hazardous materials seized at the meth labs. After this training session, Fisher spent several nights and weekends putting up special razor-wire fencing around Tufco's premises as required by the contract with Envirosolve. Fisher also purchased the connex container for storing the hazardous materials on Tufco's property. And there is evidence that Fisher was in charge of Penco's employees in meth-lab cleanups during the winter; Fisher acknowledged that he shared this leadership responsibility with Shedlock, who was in charge of the cleanups during the summer. In essence, then, Fisher worked extensively to ensure not only that Penco received the Envirosolve contract but also that Penco would be able to store the hazardous materials on Tufco's property, as the contract required. Fisher actively participated in Penco's first cleanup and helped store the materials on Tufco's propertyall before notifying Penco of the breach. Both individually and collectively, these actions could reasonably be construed as an implicit assertion that Tufco would not enforce the hazardous-materials provision of the lease as to materials stored in connection with the Envirosolve contract. Tufco nonetheless argues that Fisher's communications with Shedlock barred Penco from claiming that it reasonably relied on his actions. Although Penco does not dispute that the alleged conversations between Fisher and Shedlock occurred, it argues instead that they could not have provided notice of Tufco's position, because the lease expressly stated that if Tufco had complaints about Penco's lease compliance, the complaints would have to be submitted in writing to Penco's Hawaii office. At trial, Fisher expressly conceded that, despite being aware of the lease's written-notice requirement, and even though he had the opportunity to comply with this requirement, he never relayed any of his concerns to Penco's Hawaii office. Because the record contains ample evidence supporting the superior court's findings concerning Fisher's implied assertions that Tufco would not enforce the hazardous-materials provision and Penco's reasonable reliance on those assertions, we hold that the court did not clearly err in estopping Tufco from enforcing the provision.