Arthur v. State
| Decision Date | 27 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | CAAP–13–0000615.,CAAP–13–0000551,Nos. CAAP–13–0000531,s. CAAP–13–0000531 |
| Citation | 346 P.3d 218,135 Hawai'i 149 |
| Parties | William A. ARTHUR, Sr., Individually, and the Estate of Mona Arthur thru William A. Arthur Sr. as the Personal Representative, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. STATE of Hawai‘i, DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS ; Kamehameha Investment Corporation; Design Partners Inc.; Coastal Construction Co., Inc.; Association of Kalawahine Streamside Association; Sato and Associates, Inc.; Daniel S. Miyasato, Inc., Defendants/Appellees, and John and Mary Does 1–50, Doe Partnerships 1–50, Doe Corporations 1–50, and Other Doe Entities 1–50, Defendants Kamehameha Investment Corporation, Third–Party Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Kiewit Pacific Co., Third–Party Defendant/Appellee State of Hawai‘i, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Kiewit Pacific Co., Third–Party Defendant–Appellee Kiewit Pacific Co., Fourth–Party Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Pacific Fence, Inc., et al., Fourth–Party Defendant/Appellant William A. Arthur, Sr., Individually, and the Estate of Mona Arthur thru William A. Arthur Sr. as the Personal Representative, Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross–Appellees, v. State of Hawai‘i, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands ; Kamehameha Investment Corporation; Design Partners Inc., Defendants/Appellees/Cross–Appellees and Coastal Construction Co., Inc.; Sato and Associates, Inc.; and Daniel S. Miyasato, Defendants/Appellees/Cross–Appellants, Kamehameha Investment Corporation, Third–Party Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross–Appellee, v. Kiewit Pacific Co., Third–Party Defendant/Appellee/Cross–Appellee Kiewit Pacific Co., Fourth–Party Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross–Appellee, v. Pacific Fence, Inc., Fourth–Party Defendant/Appellee/Cross–Appellee. William A. Arthur, Sr., Individually, and The Estate of Mona Arthur thru William A. Arthur Sr. as the Personal Representative, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. State of Hawai‘i, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands ; Kamehameha Investment Corporation; Coastal Construction Co., Inc.; Association of Kalawahine Streamside Association; Sato and Associates, Inc.; Daniel S. Miyasato, Inc., Defendants/Appellees and Design Partners, Inc., Defendant/Appellant, Kamehameha Investment Corporation, Third–Party Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Kiewit Pacific Co., Third–Party Defendant/Appellee Kiewit Pacific Co., Fourth–Party Plaintiff/Appellee v. Pacific Fence, Inc., Fourth–Party Defendant/Appellee and John Does 1–5, Doe Corporations 1–5, Doe Partnerships 1–5, Roe Non–Profit Organizations 1–5, and Roe Governmental Agencies 1–5, Fourth–Party Defendants. |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
Gary Y. Okuda (Lester K.M. Leu and Karyn A. Doi with him on the briefs), (Leu Okuda & Doi) and Leighton K. Lee, Honolulu, for Plaintiffs/Appellees/ Appellants/Cross–Appellees William A. Arthur, Sr., individually and the Estate of Mona Arthur, through William A. Arthur, as Personal Representative.
Michael N. Tanoue, Honolulu, (Eric H. Kunisaki (The Pacific Law Group) and Robert P. Richards (Hughes Richards & Associates) with him on the briefs), for Fourth–Party Defendant/Appellant/ Appellee/Cross–Appellee Pacific Fence Inc.
Michiro Iwanaga (Wayne M. Sakai and Max J. Kimura with him on the briefs), (Sakai Iwanaga Sutton), Honolulu, for Defendant/Appellee/Cross–Appellant Coastal Construction Co., Inc. Kevin P.H. Sumida (Anthony L. Wong and Lance S. Au with him on the briefs), (Kevin Sumida & Associates), Honolulu, and Jane Kwan (Frank K. Goto, Jr. and Bennett J. Chin with her on the briefs), (Law Offices of Frank K. Goto, Jr., Honolulu), for Defendants/Appellees/Cross–Appellants Sato and Associates, Inc. and Daniel S. Miyasato.
Arthur H. Kuwahara (Kim & Kuwahara), Honolulu, for Defendant/Appellee/Cross–Appellee/Appellant Design Partners, Inc.
Wade J. Katano (Jonathan L. Ortiz with him on the brief), Honolulu, (Wade & Katano), for Defendant/Appellee Association of Kalawahine Streamside Association.
Brad S. Petrus (Joseph F. Kotowski, III, David R. Harada–Stone and Lyle M. Ishida with him on the briefs), (Tom Petrus & Miller), Honolulu, for Defendant/Appellee/Third Party Plaintiff/Cross–Appellee Kamehameha Investment Corporation.
Greg H. Takase (Takase & Takase of counsel), (Cary T. Tanaka and Dawn N. Nakagawa (Law Offices of Cary T. Tanaka) with him on the brief), and Wesley H.H. Ching (Sheree Kon–Herrera with him on the brief), (Fukunaga Matayoshi Hershey & Ching), Honolulu, for Third–Party Defendant/Appellee/Fourth–Party Plaintiff/Cross–Appellee Kiewit Pacific Company.
Randall Y. Yamamoto (Brian Y. Hiyane with him on the brief), (Kawashima Lorusso), Honolulu, for Defendant/Appellee/Third Party Plaintiff/Cross–Appellee State of Hawai‘i Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
FOLEY, Presiding J., FUJISE and LEONARD, JJ.
This case arises out of an incident that occurred on or about November 10, 2003, and resulted in an alleged wrongful death, at the Kalawahine Streamside Housing Development (Project ). The Project is located in Honolulu on twenty-seven acres of land owned by Defendant/Appellee/Third Party Plaintiff/Cross–Appellee State of Hawai‘i Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL ). Plaintiffs/Appellees/Appellants/Cross–Appellees William A. Arthur, Sr. (William Arthur ), individually and the Estate of Mona Arthur, through William A. Arthur, as Personal Representative (collectively, Arthur ) brought suit against DHHL, the developer Defendant/Appellee/Third Party Plaintiff/Cross–Appellee Kamehameha Investment Corporation (KIC ), the general housing contractor Defendant/Appellee/Cross–Appellant Coastal Construction Co., Inc. (Coastal ), the architecture firm Defendant/Appellee/Cross–Appellee/Appellant Design Partners, Inc. (Design Partners ), the civil engineers Defendants/Appellees/ Cross–Appellants Sato and Associates, Inc. and Daniel S. Miyasato (collectively, Sato ), and Defendant/Appellee Association of Kalawahine Streamside Association (AOAO ) (collectively, Defendants ). KIC and DHHL each filed a third-party Complaint for indemnification and contribution against the general site development contractor, Third–Party Defendant/Appellee/Fourth–Party Plaintiff/Cross–Appellee Kiewit Pacific Company (Kiewit ) Kiewit filed a fourth-party Complaint against the subcontractor who furnished and installed a chainlink fence, Fourth–Party Defendant/Appellant/Appellee/Cross–Appellee Pacific Fence Inc. (Pacific Fence ). DHHL, KIC, Design Partners, Coastal, AOAO, Sato, Kiewit, and Pacific Fence (Defendant Parties ) also filed counterclaims or cross-claims for indemnification and contribution.
On April 2, 2013, the Amended Final Judgment (Amended Final Judgment ) and underlying orders were entered in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit1 (circuit court ). The Amended Final Judgment superseded the Judgment filed on January 9, 2012, and was entered in favor of DHHL, KIC, Design Partners, Coastal, AOAO, and Sato and against Arthur. The Amended Final Judgment was also entered in favor of Kiewit and against KIC in the Third–Party Complaint, and in favor of Pacific Fence and against Kiewit in the Fourth–Party Complaint. The Amended Final Judgment provided judgment on specific claims of contribution, equitable indemnity, and contractual defense amongst the parties. Three appeals and two cross-appeals resulted from the complaint filed by Arthur on November 4, 2005 (Arthur's Complaint ) On June 4, 2013, this court filed an order consolidating appeal case nos. CAAP–13–0000531, CAAP–13–0000551, and CAAP–13–0000615 under case no. CAAP–13–0000531.
On appeal, Arthur contends the circuit court erred by:2
(1) granting AOAO's motion for summary judgment on any and all claims asserted by plaintiffs due to lack of causation;
(2) granting KIC's motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiff's claim for punitive damages; and
(3) denying Arthur's motion for leave to file a complaint against Kiewit.
On appeal, Pacific Fence contends the circuit court erred by:
(1) granting Kiewit's motion for partial summary judgment in 2007, which included the holding, "[a]ny obligation Kiewit has to defend KIC and [Sato] passes through Kiewit, as a matter of law, to Pacific Fence."
(2) granting KIC's motion for partial summary judgment in 2010, which included the holding that Pacific Fence had a joint and several duty to defend KIC from February 9, 2006;
(3) granting KIC's motion regarding Coastal in 2010;
(4) granting KIC's motion regarding Design Partners;
(5) granting KIC's motion for partial summary judgment regarding Kiewit and Sato in 2010;
(6) granting Kiewit's motion in 2010, which included the holding that Kiewit's obligation to reimburse KIC and/or make future payments for KIC's defense fees and costs passed through Kiewit as a matter of law to Pacific Fence; and
(7) holding that Pacific Fence was required to pay KIC fees and costs incurred for periods and in percentages set forth in an exhibit to the Amended Final Judgment.
On cross-appeal, Sato contends the circuit court erred by:
(1) holding that Sato had a joint and several duty to defend KIC as of December 15, 2005;
(2) finding that Sato was obligated to pay KIC fees or costs; and
(3) finding that Sato had a contractual duty to indemnify and defend KIC and a joint and several duty to defend KIC.
On cross-appeal, Coastal contends the circuit court erred by holding that:
(1) Coastal and Kiewit assumed KIC's contractual duty to defend DHHL in litigation and thus relieved KIC from obligations to defend DHHL;
(2) KIC's contractual duty to defend DHHL included defense of claims regarding the negligence or willful acts, omissions, failure to act, or misconduct of DHHL;
(3) Coastal was bound to defend DHHL against all claims asserted in litigation and not only against claims attributable to work by Coastal or its subcontractors; and
(4) Coastal had a contractual duty to defend DHHL in litigation brought by Arthur under a contract between KIC and Coastal.
On October 31, 2000, DHHL executed an...
To continue reading
Request your trial