St. Philip's Evangelical Lutheran Church of Wilmington, Delaware v. Delmarva Power & Light Company
N18C-01-098 CLS
Del. Super. Ct.Jul 31, 2018Background
- St. Philip’s contracted with Delmarva Power in July 2015 to relocate underground utility lines so St. Philip’s could build a new facility; plaintiff paid a $72,500 deposit and was later billed $116,800.
- The parties dispute scope: St. Philip’s requested relocation along Limestone Road; Delmarva also performed work along Ferris Drive that plaintiff says was much longer than requested.
- Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, trespass, and negligence (seeking compensatory and punitive damages and $4,200 for restoration work required by county).
- Delmarva moved to dismiss trespass and negligence (statute of limitations) and fraud (failure to plead with particularity).
- The court denied dismissal of negligence (held the Delaware Builders Statute could apply) but granted dismissal of trespass (consent/contractual entry) and dismissed fraud for failure to plead particularity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligence claim is time-barred | The Builders Statute does not apply; action concerns personal-property injury | 10 Del. C. §8107 (two-year) applies; work completed in Aug 2015 | Builders Statute (6-year repose) can apply to alteration/relocation; negligence not time-barred |
| Whether relocation work qualifies as "construction"/an "improvement" under Builders Statute | Relocation was necessary to develop property and should be treated as construction | Relocation of preexisting cables is not "construction" | Relocation/alteration of utilities fits "construction"/"improvement" definitions; Builders Statute governs |
| Trespass (unauthorized entry) | Delmarva exceeded scope and trespassed | Delmarva had contractual consent and/or easement privilege to enter | Trespass dismissed: Defendant had consent/privilege under contract; entry lawful |
| Fraud in the inducement – pleading sufficiency | Plaintiff alleges inducement to pay deposit and promised post-work cost reconciliation | Fraud not pleaded with Rule 9(b) particularity; no time/place/content of misrepresentations | Fraud dismissed: complaint fails to plead time, place, content, and specific representations required by Rule 9(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) sufficiency)
- Cent. Mortg. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Capital Holdings LLC, 27 A.3d 531 (Del. 2011) (pleading standard and inference-drawing at dismissal)
- Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029 (Del. 1998) (accept allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
- Diamond State Tel. Co. v. Univ. of Del., 269 A.2d 52 (Del. 1970) (dismissal standard discussion)
- City of Dover v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 514 A.2d 1086 (Del. 1986) (utility work can qualify as an "improvement" under Builders Statute)
- Stephenson v. Capano Dev., Inc., 462 A.2d 1069 (Del. 1983) (elements of fraud requiring particularity)