Carleton v. Winter

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed judgment in favor of the real estate agent and her employer, holding that the agent's recommendation of a home inspector did not establish fraudulent misrepresentation or liability under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act, and that expert testimony was required to establish the agent's professional standard of care. The court vacated judgment for the home inspection company and inspector because a genuine dispute existed regarding negligent performance and the enforceability of the contractual limitation of liability, particularly if the conduct constituted gross negligence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Winter's recommendation of Phillips was not actionable fraudulent misrepresentation because the record did not show that her statements were false or that she knew them to be false.
2. Winter's recommendation of Phillips did not bring Winter or her employer within the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act because the Act does not impose guarantor liability on a private person who recommends another merchant's goods or services.
3. Expert testimony was required to establish the applicable standard of care for a real estate agent's fiduciary duties in recommending a home inspector because those duties were not within the common knowledge of a layperson.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the Carletons' proffered expert because his experience concerned home inspection practices, not the fiduciary duties and standard of care of a real estate agent selecting a home inspector.
5. The trial court erred in treating the contractual limitation of liability as clearly restricting HTSI and Phillips' liability to the $430 inspection fee where the record presented a genuine dispute over negligent performance and the alleged conduct could constitute gross negligence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Winter's recommendation of Phillips constituted fraudulent misrepresentation.
2. Whether Winter's recommendation subjected her or her employer to liability under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act.
3. Whether expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care applicable to Winter as a real estate agent recommending a home inspector.
4. Whether the Carletons' proffered expert was qualified to testify regarding a real estate agent's fiduciary duties and standard of care.
5. Whether a contractual limitation of liability to the inspection fee barred claims against HTSI and Phillips when the alleged conduct could constitute gross negligence.
6. Whether the record required remand for factual and legal proceedings concerning gross negligence and enforceability of the limitation clause.

Disposition

other