Brad Gilman and Lisa Emerson v. Maine Mutual Fire Insurance Co., Conley Country and Michael Conley, and Bruce Bjornlund, 2003 VT 55

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed claims arising from a fire in a newly purchased home, including an insurer’s alleged bad-faith failure to pay and alleged negligence by the seller’s agent and the buyer’s attorney concerning Vermont’s smoke-detector certification statute. The court affirmed summary judgment for Maine Mutual based on the policy’s one-year suit limitation, but reversed in part the dismissals of negligence claims against the real estate agent, agency, and buyer’s attorney because the pleadings could support duties relating to delivery of the required certificate. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The action against Maine Mutual was untimely because it was filed more than one year after the December 5, 1998 loss, and the policy's one-year limitation provision was clear, unambiguous, valid, and enforceable.
2. Dismissal of the negligence-based claims against Conley Country and Michael Conley was premature because the complaint and the power of attorney could support an argument that Conley had responsibility to deliver the smoke-detector certificate required by statute.
3. Dismissal of the negligence-based claim against Bjornlund was premature because the complaint alleged facts potentially supporting fiduciary, contractual, and professional duties concerning delivery of the smoke-detector certificate.
4. Appellants failed to state a breach-of-contract claim against Conley Country or Michael Conley because there was no contract between appellants and those seller-side defendants.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the insured's action against Maine Mutual was barred by the policy's one-year limitation period.
2. Whether appellants' allegations could support negligence-based claims against the seller's agent and agency for failing to deliver or ensure delivery of the smoke-detector certificate.
3. Whether appellants' allegations could support a negligence claim against their attorney for failing to ensure delivery of the smoke-detector certificate or advise the client concerning the statutory requirements.
4. Whether appellants stated a breach-of-contract claim against the seller's agent and agency.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded