Chambco, Div. of Chamberlin Waterproofing & Roofing, Inc. v. Urban Masonry Corp.

• Decision Date: 01 September 1994
• Docket Number: No. 142,142
• Parties: CHAMBCO, A DIVISION OF CHAMBERLIN WATERPROOFING & ROOFING, INC. v. URBAN MASONRY CORPORATION. ,
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 417

338 Md. 417

659 A.2d 297

CHAMBCO, A DIVISION OF CHAMBERLIN WATERPROOFING & ROOFING, INC. v. URBAN MASONRY CORPORATION.

No. 142, Sept. Term, 1994.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 7, 1995.

Herman M. Braude (Braude & Margulies, P.C., both on brief) Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Stephen M. Seeger (Lyon and McManus, on brief) Washington, DC, for respondent.

Argued Before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI, BELL and RAKER, JJ.

ELDRIDGE, Judge.

The dispute which gave rise to this case involves the following factual allegations. Chambco was the roofing subcontractor on a construction project at 701 and 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, in the District of Columbia. Chambco had installed roof flashing on the new buildings, some of which was located in areas where Urban, the masonry subcontractor, would later install masonry. When Urban performed the masonry work, it allegedly damaged some of the flashing that had been installed by Chambco. Chambco replaced the damaged flashing at a cost of over $100,000.00.

The construction project gave rise to litigation in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Later, Chambco filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, naming Urban as the sole defendant. The complaint alleged the facts set forth above and contended that Urban was liable to Chambco in damages under a negligence theory.

Neither party gave notice of an intent to rely on foreign law pursuant to Maryland Code (1974, 1995 Repl.Vol.), § 10-504 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. Instead, the parties and the circuit court proceeded upon the assumption that the case was governed by Maryland tort law. At trial, Urban raised two legal defenses. It contended that Chambco had no cause of action in negligence against Urban because, under Maryland law, recovery in negligence for purely economic loss requires either privity between the parties or risk of personal injury, and neither was present here. In addition, Urban argued that the District of Columbia suit barred relitigation of Chambco's claims under principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel. The trial court entered judgment for Urban. In an oral explanation of the grounds for its ruling, the circuit court stated both that Chambco, under Maryland law, had no tort cause of action against Urban and that the suit was barred by principles of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.

Chambco appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. The Court of Special Appeals, also applying Maryland law, affirmed, holding that "[a]bsent privity of contract, there is no cause of action [for negligence] available by Chambco against Urban." Chambco v. Urban Masonry, 101 Md.App. 664, 681, 647 A.2d 1284, 1292 (1994). In light of its negligence holding, the Court of Special Appeals did not reach the alternate ground relied on by the trial court.

Chambco filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari, raising the question of whether Maryland law authorized a tort remedy under the circumstances. We granted the petition, but we shall not reach the issue of tort law debated by the parties.

Maryland adheres to the principle of lex loci delictus for determining what jurisdiction's tort law applies in tort actions. See, e.g., Ward v. Nationwide Ins., 328 Md. 240, 253-254 n. 8, 614 A.2d 85, 91 n. 8 (1992); Hauch v. Connor, 295 Md. 120, 123-124, 453 A.2d 1207, 1209 (1983); Frericks v. General Motors Corp., 274 Md. 288, 296, 336 A.2d 118, 123 (1975), and cases there cited. Consequently, the law of the District of Columbia governs the tort issue in the present case.

As mentioned earlier, Code (1974, 1995 Repl.Vol.), § 10-504 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, provides that a party to an action may rely on applicable foreign law and provides that notice shall be given to adverse parties. In the present case, however, no party gave notice as provided by the statute.

Where the parties to an action fail to give the statutory notice of an intent to rely on foreign law, and where it is clear that one or more issues in the case are controlled by another jurisdiction's law, a court in its discretion may exercise one of two choices with respect to ascertaining the foreign law. First, the court may presume that the law of the other jurisdiction is the same as Maryland law. Alternatively, the court may take judicial notice of the other state's law. See generally Frericks v. General Motors Corp., supra, 274...