2025 VT 50
Vt.2025Background
- PeakCM, the general contractor for a Vermont hotel, subcontracted Mountainview Metal Systems to install ATAS International metal siding panels.
- The installation relied on ATAS's publicly available instructions, which did not specify that splice plates were needed; Mountainview used the “bayonet” method instead.
- After installation, "oil canning" (panel waviness) appeared. ATAS representatives visited the site but did not clearly direct use of splice plates.
- In 2019, several panels detached, causing minor property damage; PeakCM sued Mountainview and later amended to add ATAS on product liability grounds.
- After multiple amendments to the complaint and extensive discovery, the trial court denied PeakCM's third attempt to amend its complaint and granted summary judgment to ATAS, finding the claims barred by the economic-loss rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of third motion to amend complaint | Amendment needed due to late discovery re: splice plate guidance | Delay was undue; amendment prejudicial | Denial was within trial court's discretion due to delay/prejudice |
| Summary judgment on product liability claim | Economic-loss rule exceptions (other property, special relationship) apply | Rule bars claim; no applicable exception | Economic-loss rule applies; neither exception present |
| Application of 'other property' exception | Exception applies for damage to abutting property | No such argument made below; not preserved for appeal | Argument not preserved; court does not consider |
| Standing to appeal summary judgment on indemnity | Plaintiff may assert Mountainview's indemnity claim | Plaintiff lacks standing for another party's claim | Plaintiff lacks standing; court declines to consider claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Lillicrap v. Martin, 156 Vt. 165 (liberal policy toward amendment of pleadings)
- Colby v. Umbrella, Inc., 184 Vt. 1 (undue delay and prejudice as valid reasons to deny amendment)
- EBWS, LLC v. Britly Corp., 181 Vt. 513 (special-relationship exception for economic-loss rule narrowly applied)
- Walsh v. Cluba, 198 Vt. 453 (laying out other-property and special-relationship exceptions to the economic-loss rule)
- Long Trail House Condo. Ass’n v. Engelberth Const., Inc., 192 Vt. 322 (explaining contract vs. tort separation and economic-loss rule in construction cases)
- Hickory v. Morlang, 178 Vt. 604 (undue delay justifies denial of amendment)