Blaskovitz, Jr. v. Dover Federal Credit Union
K16C-10-017 WLW
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jun 15, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Joseph and Dottie Blaskovitz (deceased) and their son Dace, acting as power of attorney, allege the Credit Union breached duties to safeguard funds and to review and verify signatures.
- After moving back to Delaware, the Credit Union promised Dace increased protection and oversight but took no steps to investigate third-party theft from the accounts.
- In 2015 a June meeting with Credit Union officials occurred; by 2016 Dace discovered forged checks and a significant账户 decrease, prompting a claim for relief.
- Plaintiffs filed negligence and breach-of-contract claims; negligence alleged multiple duties including protection of funds, sight review, and a general duty under the UCC context.
- Credit Union moved to dismiss; court determines negligence claim is displaced by the UCC but breach of contract claim is not, and breach claim is sufficiently specific to survive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligence claims are displaced by the UCC. | Negligence remains viable unless UCC covers it. | UCC displacement applies to negligence duties. | Negligence claims displaced by the UCC. |
| Whether breach-of-contract claim is displaced by the UCC. | UCC does not bar contract claims where agreement permits modification. | UCC displaces contract claims against banks where applicable. | Breach-of-contract claim not displaced by the UCC. |
| Whether the breach-of-contract claim is sufficiently specific to survive dismissal. | Claims should survive as long as cognizable under Delaware pleading; may require more detail via discovery. | Contract claims must specify agreements and breaches; otherwise dismiss. | Breach-of-contract claim sufficiently specific to survive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (notice pleading flexible; can require a more definite statement later)
- Diamond State Tel. Co. v. Univ. of Del., 269 A.2d 52 (Del. 1970) (Delaware pleading standards and related notice pleading principles)
- Price v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 26 A.3d 162 (Del. 2011) (Delaware pleading standards; analysis of movant and complaint sufficiency)
- Weiner v. Markel, 92 A.2d 706 (Del. Super. 1952) (determination on necessity of timing/places in a series of acts; allows later definite statement)
- Bullock v. Maag, 94 A.2d 382 (Del. Super. 1952) (historical context on pleading standards; not dismissed where timely)