eNotes: Liability – August 2024 – Maryland

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Maryland Case Summaries

AXE Props. & Mgmt. LLC v. Merriman
Maryland Appellate Court
261 Md. App. 1

Decided: March 1, 2024

While a plaintiff may allege causes of action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment concurrently, a plaintiff may not recover under both theories for any claim covered by the contract.

Background

AXE Properties & Management (“Defendant”) sold a home to Merriman (“Plaintiff”) in November 2015. The contract stated the home was being sold “as is.” In February 2016, Plaintiff noticed significant water accumulation in the basement, along with faulty wiring and a leaking roof. In September 2016, Plaintiff hired an architect to perform a code appliance inspection of the home, with that inspection revealing twenty (20) various defects throughout the home, including latent defects that Defendant should have known required code disclosures. In February 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of Prince George’s County alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. Eventually, the jury awarded $70,000 for breach of contract; $200,000 for unjust enrichment; and $130,000 for negligent misrepresentation.

Defendant then filed a Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”). The JNOV Motion alleged that Plaintiff could not recover under both the breach of contract claim and the unjust enrichment claim as it would constitute double recovery. Defendant also alleged that Plaintiff could not recover under the unjust enrichment claim as the jury had found that an express and enforceable contract existed, which precluded the unjust enrichment award. The Circuit Court denied the JNOV Motion, stating that while generally, unjust enrichment cannot be asserted when there is an express contract, there is a fraud exception for asserting an unjust enrichment claim. The Circuit Court indicated that the jury had found that Defendant defrauded Plaintiff through the undeclared defects and it thus denied the Motion for JNOV. Defendant timely appealed the Circuit Court’s decision.

Holding

The Appellate Court of Maryland held that, while a plaintiff may allege causes of action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment concurrently when there is evidence of fraud or bad faith, a plaintiff may not ultimately recover under both for any claim covered under the contract. The filing of a Motion for attorneys’ fees under the contract was sufficient evidence to show Plaintiff elected to recover only under breach of contract. The Appellate Court of Maryland found that Plaintiff was not entitled to recover for both breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation, as each claim involved an identical injury that did not arise from unique facts and would entitle Plaintiff to a double recovery. However, the Court found that Defendant had failed to properly preserve the double recovery argument and, as such, the jury’s $200,000 award for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation was upheld.

Questions about this case can be directed to Lucas Duty at (443) 641-0572 or lduty@tthlaw.com.

Mitchell v. Rite Aid of Md., Inc.
Maryland Appellate Court
No. 21, Sept. Term 2022

Decided: March 2, 2023

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirms summary judgment for defense in premises liability and negligent hiring and retention claims filed by victims of mass shooting.

Background

On September 20, 2018, a mass shooting occurred at a warehouse facility leased by Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc. (“Rite Aid”) in Aberdeen, Maryland. The shooter, Snochia Moseley (“Moseley”), was an employee of Abacus Corporation (“Abacus”) and was temporarily assigned to work in Rite Aid’s facility. Moseley gained access to the facility using her ID badge and proceeded to open fire on her co-workers, killing three and wounding three others. The injured co-workers filed suit against Rite Aid and Abacus, alleging a premises liability claim against Rite Aid for negligent failure to provide adequate security, and a claim of negligent hiring and supervision against Abacus. Following discovery, Rite Aid and Abacus moved for summary judgment, which was subsequently granted by the Trial Court.

The building was fenced in and secured by two layers of access controls, one at the gate and one at the front door. The building was patrolled by unarmed security guards. Plaintiffs’ expert opined that Rite Aid failed to conduct a risk assessment and implement adequate planning and training for active shooters. However, he conceded that he could not say that the shooting would have been prevented had such measures be implemented. A background check and drug test were performed when Moseley was hired, which revealed no relevant criminal history. Moseley worked only eight shifts prior to the shooting and had no disciplinary record during her employment. There was no other admissible evidence of behavior indicative of Moseley’s propensity for violence. There was some hearsay evidence that she was discriminated against by co-workers on the basis of her sexual orientation.

Holding

The Appellate Court upheld the order of summary judgment in favor of Rite Aid, as the Plaintiffs could not establish the elements of duty or causation as a matter of law. Moseley’s attack was not a reasonably foreseeable criminal act because (a) there was no history of violent criminal activity in the vicinity of the facility, (b) there was no indication that Moseley posed a threat of violence, and (c) the events immediately preceding the shootings did not presage any imminent violent outburst. There was also no causation as Moseley would have gained access to the building with her ID badge regardless of the extra security measures suggested by Plaintiffs’ expert. Summary judgment was upheld as to Abacus, as its background check of Moseley was sufficient and there was no admissible evidence sufficient to put Abacus on notice of Moseley’s propensity for violence.

Questions about this case can be directed to Nicholas Daetwyler at (443) 641-0567 or ndaetwyler@tthlaw.com.