Boudreau v. Automatic Temperature Controls, Inc.

212 A.3d 594 (R.I. 2019) · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · June 20, 2019

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Automatic Temperature Controls, Inc. in Jason Boudreau's claims arising from surveillance software installed on his work computer. The court held that the claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations, concluding that Boudreau knew or should have known of the alleged injury no later than his January 2012 unemployment hearing. The court also rejected tolling based on fraudulent concealment and declined to apply the continuing violation doctrine to the Rhode Island Wiretap Act claim.

Court
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Writing for the Court
Justice Flaherty; Flaherty; Goldberg; Indeglia; Robinson; Suttell
Jurisdiction
Rhode Island
Decision date
June 20, 2019
Procedural posture
Plaintiff appealed from a Superior Court judgment granting summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that his claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo. The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The nonmoving party must produce competent evidence establishing a disputed material fact.
Precedential value
Published Rhode Island Supreme Court opinion
Parties
Jason Boudreau v. Automatic Temperature Controls, Inc.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

statute of limitationssummary judgmentcivil procedureappellate proceduretorts

Practice areas

Civil procedureAppellate procedureStatute of limitationsPrivacy and electronic surveillanceTorts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Boudreau's claims were subject to Rhode Island's three-year statute of limitations for injuries to the person under G.L. 1956 § 9-1-14(b).
  2. Whether the discovery rule delayed accrual of Boudreau's Rhode Island Computer Crime Act and Software Fraud Act claims.
  3. Whether fraudulent concealment under G.L. 1956 § 9-1-20 tolled the limitations period.
  4. Whether the continuing violation doctrine tolled the limitations period for Boudreau's Rhode Island Wiretap Act claim.
  5. Whether the Superior Court properly granted summary judgment after converting the motion to dismiss under Rule 56.

Holdings

  1. Boudreau's claims were actions for injuries to the person within the meaning of G.L. 1956 § 9-1-14(b), and the three-year limitations period applied.
  2. The discovery rule did not apply to Boudreau's computer crime claims under the circumstances. In any event, Boudreau had actual knowledge of the facts underlying his claims no later than January 24, 2012, so the claims filed in August 2016 were time barred.
  3. G.L. 1956 § 9-1-20 did not toll the limitations period because Boudreau presented no evidence that ATC made an actual misrepresentation concealing the existence of his causes of action.
  4. The continuing violation doctrine did not apply to Boudreau's Rhode Island Wiretap Act claim because ATC's installation of tracking software was a discrete act, and later use of the resulting information constituted only continuing consequences of that act.

Key quotations

“"[T]he phrase 'injuries to the person' as used in [ § 9-1-14 ] is to be construed comprehensively and as contemplating its application to actions involving injuries that are other than physical."” (599-600)
“"The reasonable diligence standard is based upon the perception of a reasonable person placed in circumstances similar to the plaintiff's, and also upon an objective assessment of whether such a person should have discovered that the defendant's wrongful conduct had caused him or her to be injured."” (600)
“"The plaintiff must therefore 'demonstrate that the defendant made an express representation or engaged in other affirmative conduct amounting in fact to such a representation which could reasonably deceive another and induce him or her to rely thereon to his or her disadvantage.'"” (602)
“"After that one incident, ATC did not track or store plaintiff's information again."” (604)

Factual background

ATC installed System Surveillance Pro on Boudreau's work computer shortly before terminating his employment in June 2011. The software captured screenshots and transmitted information about computer activity to ATC personnel, and information from the computer was disclosed to police, leading to Boudreau's arrest and conviction for possession of child pornography. Boudreau learned at least by his January 24, 2012, unemployment-benefits hearing that ATC had installed tracking software and had monitored and transmitted his computer activity. He filed the present action in August 2016.

Procedural history

Boudreau filed state and federal claims concerning the installation and use of surveillance software on his work computer. His federal claims were dismissed as untimely in federal court, and the remaining state-law claims were remanded to the Rhode Island Superior Court. At Boudreau's request, the Superior Court converted ATC's motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 motion because matters outside the pleadings had been presented, then entered summary judgment for defendants. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.

Remand instructions

The papers were remanded to the Superior Court.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Rhode Island Supreme Court