Page v. Meyers
| Decision Date | 07 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | S-20-0221 |
| Citation | 488 P.3d 923 |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
| Parties | Sue Ann PAGE, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Lindsey MEYERS and Calvin John Page, III, Appellees (Defendants). |
Representing Appellant: Michael Stulken, Newcastle, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee: Mark W. Harris of Harris Law Office, P.C., Evanston, Wyoming.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] Sue Ann Page sued her adult stepchildren Calvin John Page III (Calvin) and Lindsey Meyers (Lindsey) for negligent misrepresentation and intentional interference with a contract, claiming they caused their father—her late husband, Calvin John Page II—to remove her as the primary beneficiary of his insurance plan. The district court granted summary judgment to Calvin and Lindsey on both claims. Ms. Page appeals. We affirm.
[¶2] The dispositive issue is:
Were Calvin and Lindsey entitled to summary judgment on Ms. Page's claims for negligent misrepresentation and intentional interference with a contract?
[¶3] Ms. Page is the surviving spouse of Mr. Page, who died intestate in September 2015. Calvin and Lindsey are Mr. Page's children from a previous marriage. Mr. Page worked for Tata Chemicals North America, Inc. (Tata), and entered into a contract for a life insurance plan through Tata several decades before his death. At one point, Ms. Page was the sole beneficiary of that insurance plan. When Ms. Page asked Tata about the life insurance following Mr. Page's death, Tata informed her she was no longer the sole beneficiary—Mr. Page had changed his designations in December 2011, naming Lindsey the primary beneficiary and Ms. Page and Calvin as secondary beneficiaries. Lindsey received a payout of $157,000. Ms. Page brought this action against Lindsey and Calvin in September 2018.
[¶4] According to Ms. Page's complaint, Mr. Page was suffering severely from the side effects of hepatitis C
in 2011, and he was "completely disoriented." Her complaint alleged that Calvin and Lindsey took advantage of Mr. Page's disorientation:
22. When Mr. Page was disoriented from the diagnosis of Hepatitis C
in December of 2011, to the point that Mr. Page was not competent to make any decision with regard to the same, Mr. Page changed his beneficiary designations pursuant to the life insurance contract.
23. [Calvin and Lindsey] caused Mr. Page to change the beneficiary designation pursuant to the life insurance contract.
24. Upon the urging and direction of [Calvin and Lindsey], Mr. Page changed his beneficiary designation pursuant to the life insurance contract to [Lindsey and Calvin].
25. [Calvin and Lindsey] knew of Mr. Page[’s] disorientation, and took advantage of the same by changing the beneficiary designations of the referenced life insurance contract. Also, upon information and belief, [Calvin and Lindsey] indicated that Mr. Page was competent to change his life insurance contract beneficiary designation.
[¶5] Ms. Page brought claims against Calvin and Lindsey for negligent misrepresentation and intentional interference with a contract.1 In her claim for negligent misrepresentation she alleged: Calvin and Lindsey supplied false information regarding Mr. Page's competency and "capacity to change his beneficiary"; reliance was had on this false information; and Ms. Page suffered pecuniary loss in the amount of $157,000 as a result. In her claim for intentional interference with a contract she asserted: her primary beneficiary status was "[a] valid contractual relationship or business expectancy"; Calvin and Lindsey knew of this contract or expectancy; and they intentionally interfered with and caused termination of it. Calvin and Lindsey answered the complaint, and the parties engaged in discovery.2
[¶6] In their summary judgment motion and supporting memorandum, Calvin and Lindsey argued the parties’ discovery showed there was a lack of evidence to satisfy one or more of the essential elements of each of Ms. Page's claims. Specifically, they argued Ms. Page could not establish: Calvin and Lindsey provided false information regarding Mr. Page's competency or capacity to change his beneficiary designation; there was a valid contract or expectancy between Ms. Page and Mr. Page; or, if there was a valid contract, Calvin or Lindsey knew about and interfered with it.
[¶7] The district court determined Calvin and Lindsey met their summary judgment burden. And, after examining the record from the vantage point most favorable to Ms. Page, the court concluded she failed to present evidence to establish any genuine dispute of material fact on these elements for trial. The court therefore awarded summary judgment to Calvin and Lindsey. Ms. Page appealed.
[¶8] We include additional facts below as necessary to our discussion.
[¶9] Our standard of review on summary judgment is well established. We review the district court's order granting summary judgment de novo and can affirm on any legal grounds provided in the record. Burns v. Sam , 2021 WY 10, ¶ 7, 479 P.3d 741, 743 (Wyo. 2021) (citing Warwick v. Accessible Space, Inc. , 2019 WY 89, ¶ 9, 448 P.3d 206, 210 (Wyo. 2019) ).
[W]e review a summary judgment in the same light as the district court, using the same materials and following the same standards. We examine the record from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and we give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the record. A material fact is one which, if proved, would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of the cause of action or defense asserted by the parties.
Id. ¶ 7, 479 P.3d at 744 (quoting Warwick , ¶ 9, 448 P.3d at 210–11 ).
[¶10] As the moving parties, Calvin and Lindsey must establish a prima facie case for summary judgment. Id. (citing Warwick , ¶ 10, 448 P.3d at 211 ). Because they do not bear the ultimate burden of persuasion, they can establish their prima facie case "by showing a lack of evidence" on essential elements of Ms. Page's claims. Id. (quoting Warwick , ¶ 10, 448 P.3d at 211 ); see, e.g. , Rammell v. Mountainaire Animal Clinic, P.C. , 2019 WY 53, ¶¶ 27–28, 442 P.3d 41, 49 (Wyo. 2019) (); Mantle v. N. Star Energy & Constr. LLC , 2019 WY 29, ¶ 116, 437 P.3d 758, 796 (Wyo. 2019) ().
[¶11] If Calvin and Lindsey make their prima facie case, the burden shifts to Ms. Page to show evidence exists to satisfy each essential element at issue, and thereby establish a genuine dispute of material fact for trial. See Burns , ¶ 7, 479 P.3d at 744 (citing Warwick , ¶ 11, 448 P.3d at 211 ). As the party opposing the summary judgment motion, Ms. Page's evidence "must be competent and admissible, lest the rule permitting summary judgments be entirely eviscerated by plaintiffs proceeding to trial on the basis of mere conjecture or wishful speculation." Hatton v. Energy Elec. Co. , 2006 WY 151, ¶ 9, 148 P.3d 8, 13 (Wyo. 2006) (quoting Cook v. Shoshone First Bank , 2006 WY 13, ¶ 12, 126 P.3d 886, 890 (Wyo. 2006) ). "Speculation, conjecture, the suggestion of a possibility, guesses, or even probability, are insufficient to establish an issue of material fact" on any essential element. Id. (quoting Cook , ¶ 12, 126 P.3d at 890 ).
[¶12] The elements of negligent misrepresentation are:
One who, in the course of his business, profession or employment, or in any other transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest, [1] supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for [2] pecuniary loss caused to them by [3] their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information.
Action Snowmobile & RV, Inc. v. Most Wanted Performance, LLC , 2018 WY 89, ¶ 9, 423 P.3d 317, 321 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. , 2003 WY 102, ¶ 42, 75 P.3d 640, 656 (Wyo. 2003) ). Ms. Page must establish a disputed issue of material fact on each element for which Calvin and Lindsey have made a prima facie showing, see Burns , ¶ 7, 479 P.3d at 744 (citing Warwick , ¶ 11, 448 P.3d at 211 ); her failure to do so on any one is a sufficient basis to affirm summary judgment in favor of Calvin and Lindsey.
[¶13] In her complaint, Ms. Page alleged:
Notably, the complaint nowhere identified to whom Calvin and Lindsey supplied the "false information" or who then relied on that information.
[¶14] Calvin and Lindsey moved for summary judgment arguing there was a lack of evidence to show they provided false information to Tata, the insurer, or anyone else regarding Mr. Page's competency. Thus, they contended Ms. Page could not satisfy that essential element of her negligent misrepresentation claim. They asserted that nothing in "the several hundred or thousands of pages of documents produced in discovery" showed they ever supplied information to Tata or the insurer regarding their father's competency. They further showed that evidence to support Ms. Page's "false information" allegation could not be found in any of the parties’ three depositions. To the contrary, Lindsey testified her only contact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harnetty v. State
...to satisfy the existence of a disputed material fact on each essential element at issue. Page v. Meyers , 2021 WY 73, ¶ 11, 488 P.3d 923, 926 (Wyo. 2021). As the nonmovant, he could have petitioned the district court for additional time,4 requested the opportunity for discovery, or any othe......
-
Upper Wagon Box, LLC v. Box Hanging Three Ranch Ltd. P'ship
...granting summary judgment de novo and can affirm on any legal grounds provided in the record." Page v. Meyers , 2021 WY 73, ¶ 9, 488 P.3d 923, 926 (Wyo. 2021) (citing Burns v. Sam , 2021 WY 10, ¶ 7, 479 P.3d 741, 743 (Wyo. 2021) ); see also Four B Properties, LLC v. Nature Conservancy , 202......
-
Martin v. Sec. State Bank
...if proved, would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of the cause of action or defense asserted by the parties. Id. (quoting Burns v. Sam, 2021 WY ¶ 7, 479 P.3d 741, 744 (Wyo. 2021)). B. SSB Did Not Have Inquiry Notice of Mr. Martin's Alleged Equitable Lien [¶12......