Landaverde v. Navarro Gomez v. Parrish Servs.
189 A.3d 849
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- Five occupants of a house at 722 Shelby Drive died from carbon monoxide poisoning in April 2012; improperly connected bathroom fan into the flue caused exhaust to backflow.
- Homeowner (Chavez) had a Homesure home-warranty that covered heating/water-heater mechanical components but expressly excluded flues; Homesure referred independent contractors to perform work.
- Caviness and Parrish (independent HVAC/service contractors) were dispatched by Homesure in 2010 to repair the boiler and water heater; they fixed immediate appliance defects but (allegedly) failed to detect, warn of, or repair rusted/holed flue sections.
- Plaintiffs (survivors) sued for negligence/wrongful death; the circuit court granted summary judgment for Caviness and Parrish, finding no tort duty because flues were excluded under the warranty arrangements.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed: it held the contracts did not eliminate an independent tort duty and that, given foreseeability of death from CO and the contractors’ expertise, a jury could find a duty to inspect visible flue portions and warn/repair if dangerous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Homesure warranty/service-provider agreements absolved Caviness & Parrish of any tort duty to inspect/repair flues | Warranty only limits what Homesure pays; it does not limit contractors’ professional duties to occupants | The warranty expressly excluded flues and the agreements showed contractors weren’t required to inspect or fix excluded items | Reversed: agreements did not extinguish independent tort duty; they only defined payment/coverage, not scope of professional duty |
| Whether Caviness & Parrish owed a tort duty, as a matter of law, to inspect visible flue portions and warn/repair significant rust/corrosion | HVAC techs had a duty to exercise reasonable care; foreseeability of death from CO and industry practice to check flues support a duty to occupants (no privity required) | Contractors argued no duty because they did not create the dangerous condition and were only retained to repair specific appliance components | Reversed: under facts viewed favorably to plaintiffs, foreseeability, profession’s skill, and risk of death supported recognizing a tort duty to inspect visible flue portions and warn/act; breach is a jury question |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacques v. First Nat. Bank of Maryland, 307 Md. 527 (1986) (establishes balancing approach: nature of harm and party relationship—foreseeability governs when risk is personal injury)
- Council of Co-Owners Atlantis Condominium, Inc. v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., 308 Md. 18 (1986) (contractor liable in tort to those foreseeably endangered by latent dangerous conditions)
- Cash & Carry America, Inc. v. Roof Solutions, Inc., 223 Md. App. 451 (2015) (contractor’s negligent performance creating risk of personal injury/property damage gives rise to tort duty absent privity)
- Otis Elevator Co. v. Embert, 198 Md. 585 (1951) (contractual scope can limit tort liability where only maintenance was undertaken and no duty related to the accident exists)
- Davis v. Frostburg Facility Operations, LLC, 457 Md. 275 (2018) (elements of negligence summarized: duty, breach, causation, damage)