Harodite Indus. Inc. v. Warren Electric Corp..
| Citation | 24 A.3d 514 |
| Decision Date | 06 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 2009–222–M.P.,2009–222–M.P. |
| Parties | HARODITE INDUSTRIES, INC.v.WARREN ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Thomas W. Lyons III, Esq., Providence, for Plaintiff.Christine K. Bush, Esq., Providence, for Defendant.Present: SUTTELL, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, ROBINSON, and INDEGLIA, JJ.
This case came before the Supreme Court as a result of our having granted a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Harodite Industries, Inc., whereby it sought review of an order of the Superior Court denying the petitioner's motion to amend its complaint. Specifically, the petitioner has asked this Court to determine whether or not the hearing justice's denial of that motion was an abuse of discretion. Further, in accordance with the order of this Court granting the petition, the parties have also addressed the issue (which was previously addressed by the Superior Court) of whether a Rhode Island or a Massachusetts statute of limitations should apply to the claims asserted by the petitioner in its proposed amended complaint.
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the ruling of the Superior Court with respect to the motion to amend, and we are in agreement with its determination concerning the choice of law issue.
The first issue before us is the correctness vel non of the hearing justice's denial of plaintiff's 1 motion to amend its original complaint. The plaintiff's basic contention is that the denial of that motion was an abuse of discretion because, when it filed the motion, plaintiff had only very recently acquired (from defendant pursuant to the discovery process) the information upon which its proposed amended complaint would in large measure be predicated.
The second issue before us (the choice of law issue) also must be understood in light of the specific factual and procedural context within which it arose.
Accordingly, we shall summarize, as briefly as is practicable, the travel of the case and the relevant discovery exchanges of the parties to the extent necessary to provide context for the issues before us.
On April 29, 2005, plaintiff, Harodite Industries, Inc., filed a complaint in the Superior Court for Providence County, with respect to an incident that occurred at Harodite's facility in Taunton, Massachusetts in May of 2002. The complaint named numerous defendants, including defendant Warren Electric Corporation. (The other defendants are no longer parties to the underlying litigation.)
In its complaint, Harodite alleged that “[o]n or about August 13, 2001, Warren Electric sold an oil pre-heater to Harodite * * *.” 2 Harodite also alleged that another company had “sold a gasket to Warren Electric, which gasket Warren Electric installed in the oil pre-heater it sold to Harodite.” Harodite's complaint then described the incident giving rise to the civil action as follows:
Harodite sought to recover “for damages to its property, for the costs of environmental cleanup[,] and for lost profits, all directly and proximately resulting from the failure of the gasket in the oil pre-heater, in an amount exceeding five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00).” Harodite did not seek to recover for any damages arising from personal injury.
Harodite's original complaint contained the following counts with respect to Warren Electric: (1) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (2) breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; (3) breach of contract; (4) negligence; (5) defect in manufacture; (6) defect in design; and (7) declaratory judgment.3 Significantly, with respect to counts four, five, and six, the thrust of the allegations in Harodite's original complaint was that “the gasket used in the assembly of the pre-heater was too large for the space in which it was placed.” (Emphasis added.) 4
In July of 2005, plaintiff and defendant propounded interrogatories and requests for production of documents upon each other. On August 22, 2005, defendant Warren Electric filed its first set of answers to plaintiff's interrogatories. Of significance to the instant appeal are the following interrogatories propounded by Harodite and Warren Electric's responses:
State what you contend caused the failure of the Warren Electric oil pre-heater at Harodite on May 3–4, 2002.
“ RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
At this time, Warren has not made any contentions concerning the cause of this spill, as investigation is incomplete. Among other things, no information or site visit has been allowed to determine the workings of the entire system, the control system, maintenance or the relief valve.
Set forth the facts that support the contention you stated in response to the previous interrogatory including the names and last known addresses of the persons having knowledge of those facts.
“ RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
Inapplicable at this time.”
Between October of 2005 and May of 2006, Warren Electric and Harodite engaged in several rounds of discovery (and discovery-related disputes) with respect to Harodite's answers to Warren Electric's interrogatories and its answer to interrogatory No. 12 in particular; that interrogatory had asked Harodite to explain the maintenance and service procedures that were in place in 2001 and 2002 with respect to the pre-heater, gasket, pressure relief valves, system controls, electrical connections, and boiler. Harodite stated in its first response (dated January 6, 2006) that “[t]here was no maintenance performed on the pre-heater.” Harodite essentially adhered to that position in its first more responsive answer (dated March 8, 2006). However, in its second more responsive answer (dated May 3, 2006), Harodite stated in pertinent part as follows:
“SECOND MORE RESPONSIVE ANSWER:
The maintenance consisted of switching the strainers every other week to filter the oil. The gauges would be monitored on a daily basis. These two tasks were performed as a matter of course, they were not reduced to writing. Every year the controls would be checked by Warren Professional Controls. The safety valves were tested by Transcat after the incident. Moreover, every year the boiler would be inspected by a Commonwealth of Massachusetts boiler inspector. If any parts failed, they would be immediately replaced. Harodite's employees monitor gauges and make visual inspections in a constant basis and do maintenance as required. There is no other written or recorded inspection or maintenance schedule.”
Also of significance to the instant appeal is Harodite's answer (dated January 6, 2006) to Warren Electric's interrogatory No. 13. Warren Electric's interrogatory and Harodite's answer read as follows:
Identify any problems or issues experienced with the Pre–Heater, the Casing or the Gasket prior to May 2002.
(Emphasis added.)
Harodite never supplemented or amended its answer to this particular interrogatory.
Quite significantly, as the discovery process continued, on November 17, 2007, Harodite provided supplemental answers to interrogatories that had been propounded by Acadia Elastomers Corp.—a defendant named in Harodite's original complaint, but not a party to these appellate proceedings. (Harodite's certificate of service that accompanied those supplemental answers indicates that a copy thereof was sent to counsel for Warren Electric.) Among those supplemental answers was Harodite's supplemental answer to Acadia Elastomers' interrogatory No. 15 (). In response to that interrogatory, Harodite identified Dr. Ali M. Sadegh and described the subject matter about which Dr. Sadegh would testify as follows:
(Emphasis added.) 5
On September 24, 2008, Harodite produced certain documents in response to a Warren Electric Request for Production of Documents that had been propounded on July 19, 2005. Of particular significance to the instant appeal, the documents produced by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.
...review of the relevant cases confirms that Massachusetts is the appropriate choice of law. See, e.g., Harodite Indus. v. Warren Electrical Corp., 24 A.3d 514, 534 (R.I.2011) (discussing Rhode Island's choice of law considerations). Massachusetts law provides for a three-year statute of limi......
-
Williams v. Stoddard
...A.2d at 79) (additional citation omitted). Rather, this Court must find that "such delay creates substantial prejudice to the opposing party." Id. (internal quotation omitted). Delay may grounds for denying a proposed amendment if "„the opposing party will not have an adequate opportunity t......
-
Williams v. Stoddard
...Supreme Court has repeatedly propounded that "'mere delay is an insufficient reason to deny an amendment.'" Harodite Indus., Inc. v. Warren Elec. Corp., 24 A.3d 514, 531 (R.I. 2011) (quoting Wachsberger, 583 A.2d at 79) (additional citation omitted). Rather, this Court must find that "such ......
-
Doe v. R.I. Sch. of Design, C.A. No. 18-10-JJM-LDA
...where the injury occurred." Blais v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. , 526 A.2d 854, 856 (R.I. 1987) ; see also Harodite Ind., Inc. v. Warren Elec. Corp. , 24 A.3d 514, 534 (R.I. 2011) ; Cribb v. Augustyn , 696 A.2d 285, 288 (R.I. 1997) ; Woodward v. Stewart , 104 R.I. 290, 243 A.2d 917 (1968). I......