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

This case involved a boundary dispute between the Martels, owners of Lakeview Farm in St. George, Vermont, and their western neighbors the Enmans over a parcel of land claimed by both. The trial court ruled that the boundary claimed by the Martels had been established by acquiescence based on mutual recognition by prior owners of a fenced and blazed line for the statutory period, and that deed descriptions in the Enmans' chain of title referred to land west of that line rather than an adjoining town's holdings. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the boundary confirmation, finding sufficient evidence of acquiescence and proper interpretation of the corrective deed reducing acreage to 48 acres. However, it vacated the award of attorney's fees, holding that the Enmans' introduction of a new ownership theory at trial did not constitute bad faith or warrant sanctions under discovery rules analogies.

propertyprocedure

The case involved defendant Michael Fitzgerald's appeal from his conviction for the first-degree murder of his wife in Vermont. Fitzgerald challenged the trial court's denial of a mistrial motion, arguing that a police officer's question during transport violated his Miranda rights by eliciting an incriminating statement; he also claimed error in the court's failure to individually voir dire the jury regarding alleged alternate juror misconduct and that the State failed to prove the corpus delicti because it did not establish the victim's exact date of death. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the officer's casual response did not constitute interrogation under Miranda, that no showing of actual jury bias required individual voir dire, and that discovery of the victim's asphyxiated body sufficiently corroborated the corpus delicti while the timing and circumstances of death were factual questions for the jury. The court found the evidence of guilt abundant and the trial rulings proper.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Hunter Broadcasting suing the City of Burlington for breaching the covenant against encumbrances in a 1987 warranty deed conveying 9.7 acres, after the City had leased the land in 1982 without state subdivision approval under public health regulations. This lack of approval exposed the property to potential liens and blocked a planned sale to Atlantic Ventures in 1989, leading Hunter to sell it later at a loss and incur extra costs. The trial court granted Hunter a directed verdict on liability and instructed the jury on both direct and consequential damages, resulting in an award of $98,500 after setoff. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that conveying subdivided land without the required state permit creates an encumbrance as a matter of law and that consequential damages are recoverable when resale is presumed.

property

The case involved an employee who sued his former employer for wrongful discharge after he resigned under threat of termination following repeated personal contacts with a co-worker despite warnings. The trial court denied the employer's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and a jury awarded damages to the plaintiff. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the undisputed facts established just cause for discharge. The employee's continued non-work-related interactions with the co-worker after receiving a written warning to limit contact to work-related tasks violated a reasonable employer directive aimed at preventing sexual harassment, and the employee had clear notice that such conduct could result in termination.

labor & employment

This case addressed whether the Vermont Constitution's bail amendment and related statute, which permit pretrial detention for certain violent felonies when evidence of guilt is great, require a full new evidentiary hearing before a Supreme Court justice upon de novo review of a district court's denial of bail. The court decided that the term 'review de novo' does not mandate a second complete evidentiary hearing as if the district court proceeding had not occurred, but instead requires the justice to independently evaluate the existing record without deference to the lower court's ruling while permitting additional evidence only upon a showing of good cause. The reasoning centered on the plain meaning of 'de novo review' as a legal term of art, which preserves independent oversight while avoiding unnecessary repetition of testimony that could traumatize victims, waste judicial resources, and delay decisions. The court noted that neither the constitutional language nor due process requires a procedure granting defendants tactical opportunities to re-examine witnesses regardless of need.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a mentally retarded mother appealing a family court order terminating her residual parental rights to her son and transferring custody to the Commissioner of Social and Rehabilitation Services, based on her inability to resume parenting duties. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the termination. It held that SRS had made reasonable efforts to assist the mother through parent educators who used repetition and practical instruction tailored to her limitations, despite the lack of specialized training for low-IQ adults. The court found clear and convincing evidence of stagnation in the mother's parenting skills and no indication that alternative services would have enabled progress, supporting the conclusion of a substantial change in circumstances and that termination served the child's best interests.

family law

The case involved an electrician who sued a restaurant owner for the unpaid balance of a bill after the owner tendered a check for a lesser amount marked 'Paid in Full.' The plaintiff had endorsed the check with language reserving all rights and remedies under protest. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the basis of accord and satisfaction under prior precedent. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding that UCC § 1-207 applies to checks regardless of the underlying transaction and permits a creditor to accept a conditional check as partial payment while explicitly reserving rights, thereby preventing an accord and satisfaction. The decision rested on the statute's plain language, the need for uniformity in commercial law, and policy considerations favoring modern business practices over the common-law rule.

business & regulatory

In State v. Williams, the defendant was convicted of driving with a suspended license under 23 V.S.A. § 674 after a trial in which the parties stipulated to his suspension and prior convictions but presented no evidence on the reason for the suspension. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the conviction because the 1991 amendments to the statute created separate criminal (§ 674) and civil (§ 676) violations depending on the basis for the underlying suspension, making that reason an essential element that the information failed to allege or prove. The court held that the charging document was therefore defective under constitutional standards, as it did not inform the defendant of the nature of the charge or allow him to prepare a defense on that element, and it rejected attempts to uphold the conviction or sentence under related provisions. Because the evidence sufficed to establish a civil violation under § 676, the matter was remanded for entry of judgment on that lesser offense and resentencing. A concurring opinion questioned the procedural rule permitting challenges to the information's sufficiency for the first time on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved thirty-six individuals charged with fishing without a license in Vermont under state statutes, who moved to dismiss on the ground that they were members of the Missisquoi Tribe (part of the Western Abenaki) and thus exempt from regulation due to unextinguished aboriginal title to the land where the offenses occurred. The trial court dismissed most of the charges, agreeing that the tribe held aboriginal title. On interlocutory appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed, concluding that any aboriginal rights had been extinguished by sovereign actions such as colonial land grants, royal proclamations, and assertions of dominion that demonstrated clear intent to terminate Indian occupancy and use rights, leaving the defendants subject to prosecution.

criminal lawcivil rightsproperty

This case involved Robert Gobin, a long-time University of Vermont professor, who filed a grievance with the Vermont Labor Relations Board claiming that UVM had applied salary adjustment rules and guidelines in a discriminatory manner, resulting in salary compression that left his pay below the mean for his rank and peers. The Board dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction after finding that Gobin failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory application of any binding rule or regulation. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that the Provost’s Guidelines for salary adjustments were binding rules under the relevant statute, that evidence of the salary disparity was sufficient to meet the prima facie threshold, and that Gobin should be permitted access to peer salary data through discovery to support his claim.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of lewd and lascivious behavior under 13 V.S.A. § 2601 after an incident in which he removed the clothing of an 11-year-old girl while she slept in his van, exposing her to a 13-year-old witness. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of evidence that his conduct was "open," the state's destruction of police interview notes, and jury instructions directing the jury to "seek the truth." The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the witnessed exposure satisfied the openness requirement, that absent bad faith the note destruction did not violate due process, and that the instructions as a whole properly stated the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Burlington Electric Department challenging a sales and use tax assessment by the Vermont Department of Taxes on woodchips purchased for use in generating electricity at a power plant between 1983 and 1986. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings that the woodchips were taxable. The court held that 32 V.S.A. § 9741(14) excludes fuel and electricity from the manufacturing exemption for tangible personal property, with the exclusion applying to both the raw materials and consumables clauses based on the statute's plain language and structure. The court further rejected equal protection and double taxation claims under the state and federal constitutions, concluding that the tax classification was reasonable and applied to distinct transactions.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In Bissonette v. Gambrel, an unmarried father appealed a trial court's decision awarding custody of their child to the mother under Vermont's Parentage Proceedings Act. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the custody award to the mother, the visitation schedule, and the award of attorney's fees. The court reasoned that the trial court properly applied the best interests of the child factors from the divorce custody statute, gave appropriate weight to the mother's role as primary caretaker without finding her unfit, and its findings were not clearly erroneous. The visitation order was supported by expert testimony and treatises, and the attorney's fees award was within the court's discretion based on the parties' financial circumstances.

family law

The case involved Ervin Snide's appeal from a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol, arguing that a jury instruction presuming witnesses testify truthfully undermined the state's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The court held that the jury instructions, viewed as a whole, were balanced and fair, with repeated references to the presumption of innocence and the state's burden of proof that clarified and limited the challenged instruction. Because the issue was not preserved at trial, the court applied a glaring-error standard and found none here, though it noted the instruction should be avoided in future cases.

criminal lawprocedure