187 A.3d 583
Me.2018Background
- On Nov. 20, 2012 Burrill rented a 2012 Ford Mustang from Avis in Las Vegas, declined loss-damage waiver, and the car was damaged that day. Avis demanded payment multiple times; Burrill did not pay.
- Avis sued Burrill in Maine District Court (Skowhegan) for breach of contract and negligence; after discovery Avis moved for partial summary judgment on liability and the court granted liability on Oct. 5, 2016, reserving damages for a hearing.
- At the damages hearing Avis submitted an affidavit from a claims examiner with attachments: the rental agreement, a J.D. Power vehicle valuation report, a towing invoice, and salvage proceeds documentation; Burrill objected to the attachments as hearsay.
- The trial court admitted the affidavit and attachments (de bene) and awarded Avis $15,342.57 in damages, attorney fees, and costs, but denied pre/post-judgment interest.
- On appeal the Maine Law Court affirmed liability but held the affiant failed to lay adequate foundation under M.R. Evid. 803(6)/902(11) for third‑party records (J.D. Power valuation, towing invoice, salvage documentation) and vacated the damages and attorney‑fee awards, remanding for nominal damages and for application of Nevada law on interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Burrill) | Defendant's Argument (Avis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability for breach of contract | Burrill argued factual disputes (e.g., alleged oral authorization of driver) create genuine issues | Avis: rental agreement makes renter responsible for any damage if waiver declined; Burrill failed to pay | Liability affirmed: no genuine issue on existence, breach, and that some damage occurred; parol‑evidence arguments irrelevant to obligation to pay |
| Admissibility of affidavit attachments under business‑records exception | Attachments (J.D. Power report, towing invoice, salvage docs) are hearsay and lacked foundation from their creators | Attachments are integrated into Avis claim file and certified by Avis claims examiner under Rule 902(11) | Court abused discretion admitting attachments: affiant lacked foundation about third‑party preparers' business practices; attachments inadmissible |
| Damages amount proved | Burrill: Avis failed to prove amount because relied on inadmissible hearsay | Avis: affidavit and attachments (and proffered testimonial/repair estimate) established damages | Because specific damages were not proved with admissible evidence, award vacated; on remand only nominal damages awarded under Nevada law; attorney fees vacated for reconsideration |
| Interest and fees | Burrill opposed interest/fees | Avis argued contract authorized interest and fees | Court instructed trial court on remand to apply Nevada law to determine interest; attorney fees vacated for redetermination given nominal damages outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Oceanic Inn, Inc. v. Sloan's Cove, LLC, 133 A.3d 1021 (Me. 2016) (summary‑judgment standard; view facts for nonprevailing party)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Lowell, 156 A.3d 727 (Me. 2017) (standard of review for business‑records foundational findings)
- KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n v. Estate of Quint, 176 A.3d 717 (Me. 2017) (definition of qualified witness for business‑records exception)
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Eddins, 182 A.3d 1241 (Me. 2018) (insufficient foundation for admission of third‑party records under Rule 803(6))
- Gramanz v. T‑Shirts & Souvenirs, 894 P.2d 342 (Nev. 1995) (where damages amount not proved, plaintiff entitled only to nominal damages)