Washington, DC – eNotes: Liability – April 2025

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington, DC Case Summary

Williams v. Aviles
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4612

Decided: February 26, 2025

The Trial Court properly found that a homeowner could not establish her claims against a contractor whose allegedly faulty installation of a gas furnace caused a gas leak.

Background

Plaintiff Williams hired Defendant Aviles to install a new Trane-model gas furnace in her home in 2016. During the installation, Defendant connected the furnace to the existing gas line and did not detect any leaks. Defendant was not a licensed HVAC technician in the District of Columbia, nor was he certified to purchase and install Trane-model equipment. In January 2017, Plaintiff went to the hospital for headaches and difficulty breathing. A subsequent inspection revealed a small gas leak in the pipe fitting connected to the furnace. The next day, Defendant returned to the home and fixed the leak. Plaintiff later sold her home for less than the asking price, and the buyer’s home inspection noted issues with the HVAC system.

Plaintiff, acting pro se, sued Defendant for negligence, breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violation of the DC Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”) in Federal Court. She argued that Defendant’s unlicensed and faulty furnace installation caused her illness and decreased home value. Plaintiff also claimed that Defendant made an affirmative misrepresentation by holding himself out as a licensed and certified contractor. During discovery, Plaintiff did not disclose a mechanical engineer to opine on the proximate cause of the gas leak in her expert designation, at least not until eleven months after her expert designation deadline. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Defendant also moved to strike Plaintiff’s untimely expert disclosure and the accompanying report. The District Court granted Defendant’s motion to strike and dismissed all of Plaintiff’s common law claims. At an ensuing bench trial, the Court ruled in favor of Defendant on the CPPA claim, finding that he was more credible than Plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed.

Holding

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments of the District Court. The Court first held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting Defendant’s Motion to strike Plaintiff’s expert witness on the grounds that Plaintiff had ample time – seven weeks – to retain an engineering expert prior to the close of discovery after it became apparent she needed one, and Plaintiff failed to exercise diligence in doing so. Next, the Court held that Plaintiff failed to establish the applicable standard of care for her negligence claim. None of her remaining experts opined on the standard of care in their testimony or reports. The Court also held that Plaintiff’s alternative theories of negligence – res ipsa loquitor and negligence per se – failed because there were causes other than the theory that Defendant’s negligence may have caused the gas leak, and Plaintiff failed to identify a statute or regulation that provided a standard of care. Regarding Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation, the Court held that she failed to provide any evidence of out-of-pocket expenses or loss in home value related to the gas leak or any evidence of injury from reliance on the alleged misrepresentation. Finally, under the CPPA, the Court held that the District Court did not clearly err when it found that Defendant did not make the alleged affirmative misrepresentations about his licensure as a contractor because there were multiple inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s trial testimony and deposition testimony and the district court’s credibility determinations are entitled to significant deference.

Questions about this case can be directed to Samuel Hemmingstad at (202) 978-2049 or shemmingstad@tthlaw.com.