Lower Neuse Preservation Group, LLC v. Boats, Etc., Inc., 4:11-cv-00077

Lower Neuse intends SALTY to be chartered for a children's camp and sought Coast Guard certification requiring repairs.
Plaintiff hired Boats, Etc., Inc. to inspect and refit SALTY for up to $100,000, with a one-year timeline for completion by spring 2010.
Midgett and Dovel, owners of Boats, Etc., allegedly made false representations about cost and completion to induce hiring.
By mid-2010 the refit was incomplete; SALTY was moved to another yard and defendants allegedly abandoned work; total repair cost projected at $300,000.
Complaint asserts eleven claims including contract, several fraud theories against Midgett, negligence, implied warranties, and fiduciary duty; only count 5 (bailment) implicated a different duty.
Virginia law on piercing the corporate veil and officer liability governs whether Midgett and Dovel can be personally liable for the contract.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Counts 2 and 8 plausibly pled fraud by Midgett?	Lower Neuse alleges misrepresentation of future performance known false and intended to induce reliance.	Fraud claims rely on future promises; insufficient factual support and damages.	Counts 2 and 8 survive; Count 10 dismissed.
Should Midgett and Dovel be held personally liable on the contract?	veil piercing due to alter ego and continued liability after reinstatement.	Reinstatement bars personal liability; no facts show abuse of the corporate form.	Personal liability for contract claims against Midgett and Dovel dismissed.
Do Counts 3 and 4 (negligence and bailment) survive?	Independent duties arising from agency contract create tort claims.	Tort claims arise only if a separate common law duty exists; contract governs.	Counts 3 and 4 dismissed.
Do Counts 5 and 6 (maritime implied warranty) survive?	Implied workmanlike warranty arises in maritime repairs against contracting party.	Questionable as to whether separate duties exist.	Counts 5 and 6 survive.
Are Counts 7 and 9 (fraud about corporate status) viable?	Misrepresentation that Boats, Etc. was lawfully existing harmed plaintiff.	Boats, Etc. was reinstated; misrepresentation not material or damages shown.	Counts 7 and 9 dismissed.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (requirements to plead plausible claims)
Station #2, LLC v. Lynch, 280 Va. 166 (Va. 2010) (fraud elements and reliance standard in Virginia)
Sved v. ZH Technologies, 280 Va. 58 (Va. 2010) (piercing corporate veil and officer liability after reinstatement)
Cheatle v. Rudds Swimming Pool Supply Co., 234 Va. 207 (Va. 1987) (alter ego and misuse of corporate form to commit injustice)
Little Beaver Enterprises v. Humphreys Railways, Inc., 719 F.2d 75 (4th Cir. 1983) (maritime implied warranty of workmanlike performance)