201 A.3d 316
R.I.2019Background
- WSA hired Pare to provide engineering/consulting services and prepare the RFP for a sewer expansion project; five contractors (including Rocchio and DiGregorio) submitted bids.
- Rocchio was the low bidder but omitted certain EPA forms; Pare’s bid-review memorandum noted the omission and recommended Rocchio could be disqualified.
- WSA executive director Burke‑Wells reviewed bids, received Rocchio’s missing EPA forms after a courtesy meeting, but cited performance concerns from prior projects and irregularities in Rocchio’s submission when recommending award to DiGregorio. The board unanimously awarded the contract to DiGregorio.
- Rocchio sued Pare for: (1) intentional interference with prospective contractual relations; (2) negligence; and (3) breach of contract as a third‑party beneficiary. Pare moved for summary judgment.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment for Pare based on lack of causation; the Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds: no duty in negligence, no intended third‑party beneficiary, and no evidence of intentional, unjustified interference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence — duty of care | Pare owed Rocchio the professional duty to prepare the RFP and bid documents correctly and exercise engineer standard of care | Pare argued no duty to unidentified potential bidders and economic‑loss doctrine bars recovery | Court: No legal duty owed to an unforeseeable/indeterminate bidder in a public RFP context; negligence claim fails on duty (economic‑loss doctrine inapplicable here) |
| Third‑party beneficiary | Rocchio contends the Pare–WSA contract intended to benefit bidders like Rocchio, so Rocchio can sue Pare for breach | Pare argues Rocchio was at most an incidental beneficiary; contract contains no language showing intent to benefit third parties | Court: Contract is clear and shows no intent to benefit third parties; Rocchio not an intended beneficiary; summary judgment affirmed |
| Intentional interference with prospective contract | Pare’s recommendation to disqualify and its memorandum caused WSA to reject Rocchio’s bid — interference was intentional and unjustified | Pare: acted in good faith performing duties for WSA; no intent to harm and no evidence of improper motive; any decision was WSA’s | Court: Record lacks evidence of Pare’s intent to harm or lack of good faith; no genuine issue of material fact — summary judgment affirmed |
| Causation (as argued below) | Rocchio: causation is for the jury; Pare’s actions led to award to DiGregorio | Pare: Rocchio failed to produce evidence showing Pare’s recommendation proximately caused the award decision | Court: Although lower court relied on causation, the Supreme Court affirmed on duty/beneficiary/intent grounds, rendering causation analysis unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Forte Brothers, Inc. v. National Amusements, Inc., 525 A.2d 1301 (R.I. 1987) (architect/engineer may owe duty to foreseeable contractor who directly and reasonably relies on professional services)
- E.W. Burman, Inc. v. Boston Investment Property #1 State, 658 A.2d 515 (R.I. 1995) (limits on imposing duty to unforeseeable third parties in construction contexts)
- Glassie v. Doucette, 157 A.3d 1092 (R.I. 2017) (elements and standing for third‑party beneficiary contract claims)
- Medeiros v. Sitrin, 984 A.2d 620 (R.I. 2009) (elements of negligence action)