Court Opinion

ID: 9629601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:46:02.871752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:21.493490
License: Public Domain

Dooley, J.,
dissenting. I agree with plaintiff that the trial court went beyond its role in this summary judgment proceeding by finding that plaintiff’s attorney knew ahead of time when the limitations period was going to expire. The only evidence supporting this finding is the following two words of testimony by plaintiff’s attorney:
Q: 12 V.S.A. § 513 presumes that as of January of 1997 and also as of March 10 you were aware of the one year statute.
A: I was.
Given the odd wording of the question, which was not really a question at all, it is not clear whether the response of plaintiff’s attorney conceded that he was presumed to be aware of the statute, or that he was aware of the statute. Nor is it clear at what point he became aware of the one-year limitations period, even assuming he was conceding that at some point he had actually become aware of the statute. He may well have meant that he became aware of the statute in March, after it had expired, when he asked the adjuster to waive the limitations period. In short, his brief response did not warrant the court’s summary judgment finding that plaintiff’s attorney knew of the one-year limitations period before it had expired. Without that finding, summary judgment on the estoppel issue was inappropriate because a disputed issue of material fact exists as to whether plaintiff’s attorney was “ignorant of the true facts.” See Fisher v. Poole, 142 Vt. 162, 168, 453 A.2d 408, 412 (1982) (setting forth elements of equitable estoppel).