Knappmiller v. Bove
48 A.3d 607
Vt.2012Background
- Vaillancourt Tree-Landscape Service appeals a trial court denial of post-trial attorney’s fees and costs under implied indemnity.
- Knappmiller sued the Boves for wrongful cutting of trees; Vaillancourt cut and removed trees hired by the Boves.
- Vaillancourt cross-claimed against the Boves for indemnity, negligence, and breach of contract, seeking indemnity if Vaillancourt was liable to Knappmiller.
- The jury found no wrongful cutting by either the Boves or Vaillancourt; the indemnity cross-claim was not reached.
- Vaillancourt sought fees two weeks after trial; the court denied, citing lack of fault by the Boves and lack of notice.
- On appeal, Vaillancourt argues Windsor supports fee awards without fault; the court distinguishes Windsor and affirms the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is fault required for implied indemnity of fees? | Vaillancourt argues Windsor allows indemnity without fault. | Boves contend fault (or causal linkage) is required for indemnity under Albright/related precedent. | Fault is required; Windsor not controlling; no indemnity awarded. |
| Did the record establish underlying culpability to support indemnity under Albright? | Vaillancourt asserts Boves’ knowledge/role supports indemnity. | Boves had no proven wrongdoing linked to Vaillancourt’s costs; no underlying liability. | No underlying culpability found; no basis for indemnity. |
| Did Vaillancourt waive indemnity by not objecting to jury instructions or verdict form? | Vaillancourt argues the instruction framework allowed indemnity regardless of fault. | No objection to instructions/verdict form; waiver prevents recovery. | Waiver; no award of fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Windsor School District v. State, 2008 VT 27 (Vt. 2008) (explains fault considerations and confines Windsor to its strict-liability context)
- Albright v. Fish, 138 Vt. 585 (Vt. 1980) (requires underlying culpability to support equitable indemnification)
- Blanchard v. Villeneuve, 142 Vt. 267 (Vt. 1982) (discusses limitations on indemnity and related holdings)
- Bull v. Pinkham Eng’g Assocs., 170 Vt. 450 (Vt. 2000) (notes indemnity context and proximate-cause considerations)
- Welch v. LaGue, 141 Vt. 644 (Vt. 1982) (example of indemnity where duty and causation supported costs)
- White v. Quechee Lakes Landowners’ Ass’n, 170 Vt. 25 (Vt. 1999) (burden on third-party plaintiff to establish right to equitable indemnification)