Bernard Quirion v. Bryan Veilleux
2013 ME 50
| Me. | 2013Background
- Bernard Quirion and Nancy Dulac sued Veilleux and S.M. Transport for negligence and loss of consortium stemming from a Canadian truck collision in Maine.
- The Superior Court ruled that damages should be determined under Canadian law (Canada/Quebec) rather than Maine law.
- Quirion sought to appeal the choice-of-law ruling interlocutorily, either via reporting the issue or dismissing with prejudice for appeal.
- The court denied reporting and any voluntary dismissal; the appeal proceeded as an interlocutory challenge.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not fit for the final judgment rule exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the choice-of-law ruling is appealable now. | Quirion argues for appeal under precedent allowing interlocutory review of such rulings. | Veilleux/S.M. Transport contend no such interlocutory appeal exists here. | Interlocutory appeal not allowed; final judgment rule applies. |
| Whether death knell or judicial economy exceptions apply to permit merits review. | Quirion asserts exceptions due to potential cost and lack of viable claim under Maine law. | Defendants argue no exceptional circumstances justify mid-case review. | No exception applies; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jipson v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 2007 ME 10 (Me. 2007) (rejects appeal from voluntary dismissal to preserve interlocutory review)
- Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Christensen, 740 A.2d 43 (Me. 1999) (death knell exception requires irreparable loss of substantial rights)
- Liberty v. Bennett, 46 A.3d 1141 (Me. 2012) (judicial economy exception requires final disposition or unique circumstances)
- State v. Bromiley, 983 A.2d 1068 (Me. 2009) (reaffirmed cautious approach to revisiting settled law unless warranted)
- Collins v. Trius, Inc., 663 A.2d 570 (Me. 1995) (illustrates concerns with mid-proceeding interlocutory appeals)
- John’s Insulation, Inc. v. L. Addison & Assocs., 156 F.3d 101 (1st Cir. 1998) (discusses limits on appeals from dismissed parties under final judgment rule)
- OF Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., 549 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2008) (some circuits permit certain voluntary-dismissal-based interlocutory appeals)