Griffith v. Energy Independence, LLC
N17C-03-011 AML
| Del. Super. Ct. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- In Aug. 2011 Energy Independence (Energy) and its agent James Watson supervised encapsulation/insulation of Deborah Griffith’s crawlspace; Energy subcontracted the work to Southland Insulators.
- Southland completed the work without recommending or installing a dehumidifier or other moisture-control device.
- In 2015 Griffith discovered a dehumidifier was necessary to prevent mold in insulated crawlspaces and alleges mold caused lung disease and economic loss.
- Griffith sued (filed July 2017) for breach of contract, negligence, breach of implied warranty of good quality and workmanship, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
- Energy and Watson moved to dismiss negligence, implied warranty, and implied covenant claims against them; Watson sought dismissal of all claims against him.
- The court denied dismissal of negligence and implied-warranty claims against Energy, granted dismissal of the implied-covenant claim, and dismissed all claims against Watson (negligence against Watson dismissed with prejudice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a contracting party can be sued in tort for negligent performance of contractual duties | Griffith: Energy’s negligent performance (failing to recommend/install dehumidifier) supports a tort claim | Energy: Tort barred because dispute is contract-based | Court: Permits tort claim under Restatement §323 and Delaware law (negligent performance actionable); denial of dismissal |
| Whether Energy (supervisor/subcontractor principal) is subject to implied warranty of good quality and workmanship | Griffith: Energy impliedly warranted work to be skillful/workmanlike | Energy: Warranty applies only to Southland, the actual performer | Court: Denies dismissal—general contractor cannot escape implied warranty by subcontracting |
| Whether defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by not including a dehumidifier | Griffith: Failure to advise/install dehumidifier prevented her from obtaining contract fruits | Energy: Complaint lacks a specific implied contractual obligation and facts showing arbitrary or unreasonable conduct | Court: Grants dismissal—no basis to imply a contractual term or show arbitrary conduct; covenant cannot supply protections plaintiff omitted |
| Whether Watson can be held personally liable for negligence | Griffith: Corporate officers/agents can be liable for their own negligence | Watson: He acted only as Energy’s agent and performed at most omissions; no misfeasance alleged | Court: Grants dismissal as to Watson—no allegations of active participation/misfeasance; omission alone insufficient; dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Council of Unit Owners of Breakwater House Condominium v. Simpler, 603 A.2d 792 (Del. 1992) (general contractor remains subject to implied warranty despite use of subcontractors)
- Aspen Advisors LLC v. United Artists Theatre Co., 843 A.2d 697 (Del. Ch. 2004) (implied covenant breached only by arbitrary or unreasonable conduct that defeats contract’s benefits)
- Riedel v. ICI Americas, Inc., 968 A.2d 17 (Del. 2009) (Delaware courts’ adoption/use of Restatement principles in tort law)
- Bye v. George W. McCaulley & Son Co., 76 A. 621 (Del. Super. 1908) (recognition of implied warranty that contracted work be done in skillful, workmanlike manner)