-
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RICHARD A. I-IUGHES and H. KAREN HUGHES, Plaintiffs, V. C.A. No. Nl 8C-01-289 CEB IMPERIAL HOME REMODELING LLC and GIOVANNI ESPOSITO a/l791 A.2d 8
, 21-22 (Dei. Ch. 2001). saying the individual defendant would not be “shielded from liability simply because he was acting in a corporate capacity when he allegedly participated in conduct violative of the CFA and the UDTPA.”2 Defendant points the Court to the “fine print” of the Hughes/Imperial home improvement contract and a provision that defendant calls an “Integration Clause” that excluded reliance on representations not contained in the agreement The Integration Clause may be given effect, but it may not. We see several cases that have read such clauses quite narrowly.3 And while the exact nature of the representations and defects are not fleshed out at this early stage of the case, we note that defendants’ answer avers that the contract was not completed because Imperial was “prevented from completing work by the City of Newarl<.”4 This is consistent with the representations at oral argument that Imperial is not licensed to do business in Newark, DE. That may, or may not, be relevant to the representations made at the time of contracting, but it does demonstrate that dismissing defendant at this stage would be inappropriate. 2
Id. at 22.3 See generally Kronenberg v. Katz,
872 A.2d 568, 593 (Del. Ch. 2004); Alltrista Plastics, LLC v. Rockline lna'ustries, Inc.,
2013 WL 5210255at *5 (Del. Super. 2013); Aviation West Charters, LLC v. Freer,
2015 WL 5138285at 7-8 (Del. Super. 2015). 4 Answer 116, 8. Whether all of this adds up to summary judgment in favor of either defendant is too early to tell. The motion before the Court is to dismiss John Esposito in his individual capacity, which the Court will do, as to the two contract counts, The Court will not dismiss tort/misrepresentation counts as the parties must develop a record upon which such claims can be examined. As to defendants’ integration clause arguments, the Court cannot rule as a matter of law that the mere presence of such a clause in a contract bars plaintiffs from presenting their evidence of fraud or misrepresentation Defendants may raise their arguments again upon full discovery, assuming there are by then no factual issues in dispute. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Counts 1 and 2 and DENIED as to the remaining Counts. IT IS SO ORDERED. _/ f- /‘ / Judge/Charles E. Butle_ru/
Document Info
Docket Number: N18C-01-289 CEB
Judges: Butler J.
Filed Date: 5/17/2018
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 5/17/2018