Frederic W. Allen

In this case, a homeowner sued independent insurance adjusters hired by his insurer, alleging that their negligent investigation and handling of a water damage claim caused mold growth that rendered his home uninhabitable, resulting in economic losses. The superior court granted summary judgment to the adjusters, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the adjusters owed no cognizable legal duty to the homeowner because they were acting on behalf of the insurer, the homeowner's remedy lay solely in contract against the insurer, and the economic-loss doctrine barred recovery of such damages in tort absent privity of contract. The decision emphasized public policy factors beyond mere foreseeability, including the statutory framework under which independent adjusters represent insurers rather than insureds, and the absence of any private right of action under insurance trade practices laws.

torts & liabilitypropertybusiness & regulatory

This case concerned whether the Vermont Supreme Court had jurisdiction over an appeal by the Department of Taxes from a superior court judgment in a tax dispute. The Department hand-delivered its notice of appeal to the Supreme Court within thirty days of the judgment but mailed a copy to the superior court, which arrived later. The court held that the notice was timely filed under V.R.A.P. 4 because a notice delivered to the Supreme Court within the deadline qualifies as "mistakenly filed" and is deemed filed in the proper court on the date received. The core reasoning was that the rule's purposes—informing parties of ongoing proceedings and invoking appellate jurisdiction—are served by timely filing in the wrong court, without requiring inquiry into the filer's intent or producing arbitrary distinctions among litigants.

proceduretaxes

In State v. Synnott, the defendant was convicted by a jury of lewd and lascivious behavior, second degree unlawful restraint, and attempted sexual assault arising from an incident in which he allegedly restrained and assaulted a woman over several hours in her apartment after they met at a bar. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his post-arrest behavior in a holding cell, that the restraint conviction could not stand separately, that the evidence was insufficient to support the attempted sexual assault conviction, and that the jury instructions on intent and a supplemental charge were inadequate or prejudicial. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient, any instructional ambiguities were cured by supplemental instructions, and no reversible error occurred in the admission of evidence or other rulings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim arising from a 1997 workplace accident in which claimant suffered severe spinal and other injuries while employed by defendant as a truck driver. After initially receiving temporary disability, medical, and vocational rehabilitation benefits, defendant sought to terminate payments by filing a Form 27 citing claimant's fraud, including falsified medical notes, therapy receipts, and mileage reimbursements, as well as exaggerated symptoms shown on video evidence. The Commissioner of Labor and Industry terminated all benefits, finding ongoing deception that undermined claimant's credibility with providers. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed termination of temporary disability, medical, and vocational benefits due to the fraud but reversed on permanent disability benefits, holding that the undisputed permanent impairment from the original injury remains compensable and that the fraud does not forfeit that separate entitlement under the statute. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the extent of permanent disability.

labor & employment

The case involved plaintiffs suing property owners after their minor son died in a car accident caused by an intoxicated nineteen-year-old driver who had consumed alcohol on the defendants' lands during social gatherings. The superior court dismissed the negligence claims for failure to state a claim, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the landowners owed no legal duty because they were not present and did not furnish or supply the alcohol. The court reasoned that plaintiffs failed to allege facts supporting a duty under existing social host liability precedents, declined to expand such liability to mere property owners based on ownership alone, and distinguished social hosts from commercial vendors who have greater ability and incentive to control alcohol consumption.

torts & liability

The case involved Hinesburg Sand and Gravel Company, a supplier of crushed gravel, challenging a Vermont Agency of Transportation policy that preferred crushed stone over crushed gravel in state highway construction bid specifications. The company sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause by harming its sales opportunities as a potential subcontractor on projects where stone was available. The Chittenden Superior Court dismissed the action, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing because its interest in equal competition as a non-bidder supplier was neither protected by the Equal Protection Clause nor within the zone of interests of the civil rights statute. The court further reasoned that even if standing existed, the government has broad discretion in procurement decisions that does not create a constitutional right for disappointed suppliers to challenge product choices.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure