Daryl Heneault v. Kenneth Lantini, 213 A.3d 410

Heneault (plaintiff/assignee) paid $18,600 to Lantini/1200 Hartford LLC for a commercial lease starting November 14, 2013: $9,300 security deposit and $9,300 first month’s rent. A receipt stated deposits were refundable if occupancy not provided by Nov. 14.
Town of Johnston posted a condemnation notice that prevented plaintiff from occupying the premises; plaintiff retrieved equipment and demanded return of payments.
Defendants returned $9,300 (first month’s rent) via the broker but retained the $9,300 security deposit, claiming aggravation and asserting plaintiff defaulted; plaintiff sued for conversion and breach of contract.
On the eve of trial defendants moved to dismiss under the economic loss doctrine; the trial justice denied the motion as untimely and the issue was not reasserted during trial.
The jury found conversion and awarded $9,300 (punitive damages were found but unquantified); no jury verdict found breach of contract for plaintiff.
Posttrial, the trial justice denied defendants’ new-trial motion, held the economic loss doctrine inapplicable or waived, and awarded plaintiff $24,075 in attorney’s fees under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-45; the Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated the fee award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the economic loss doctrine barred plaintiff’s conversion claim	Heneault argued tort recovery was proper because conversion occurred when defendants retained the security deposit	Lantini argued commercial dispute should be governed by contract law; economic loss doctrine bars tort recovery for purely economic losses	Court: Defendants waived the economic-loss argument by raising it untimely; doctrine not considered on appeal
Whether § 9-1-45 authorized awarding attorney’s fees to plaintiff	Heneault sought fees under § 9-1-45 as prevailing party arising from breach-of-contract litigation	Lantini argued fees limited to actions arising from a breach of contract and jury made no finding of breach for plaintiff	Court: § 9-1-45 did not apply because plaintiff’s breach claim was not tried/decided; fee award vacated

Letizio v. Ritacco, 204 A.3d 597 (R.I. 2019) (standard of review for motions for new trial and trial-justice role as super juror)
Kemp v. PJC of Rhode Island, Inc., 184 A.3d 712 (R.I. 2018) (deference to trial justice when assessing verdict evidence)
Berman v. Sitrin, 101 A.3d 1251 (R.I. 2014) (de novo review for pure legal questions on new-trial motions)
Tyre v. Swain, 946 A.2d 1189 (R.I. 2008) (new issues cannot be raised for first time in a motion for a new trial)
Adams v. Santander Bank, N.A., 183 A.3d 544 (R.I. 2018) (raise-or-waive rule on appellate review)
Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 160 A.3d 975 (R.I. 2017) (preservation of issues for appeal)
Arnold v. Arnold, 187 A.3d 299 (R.I. 2018) (American rule on attorney’s fees; statutory/contractual exceptions required)
In re Estate of Brown, 206 A.3d 127 (R.I. 2019) (de novo review of legal basis for attorney’s-fee awards)
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island v. Najarian, 911 A.2d 706 (R.I. 2006) (standards for awarding attorney’s fees and appellate review)
Women’s Development Corp. v. City of Central Falls, 764 A.2d 151 (R.I. 2001) (§ 9-1-45 applies to civil actions arising from breach of contract)
Glassie v. Doucette, 159 A.3d 88 (R.I. 2017) (§ 9-1-45 inapplicable where underlying action is not a breach-of-contract case)