Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contract Disputes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court reviews contract and evidence rulings in snow‑plowing dispute
Summary
Appeal in a commercial dispute over snow‑plowing and post‑plow property damage turned on whether the March 2018 settlement defined the scope of repairs and whether trial evidence about insurance should have been admitted; the court reserved judgment.
The panel heard competing arguments in a commercial dispute between B Duns Inc. doing business as Shoveltown Landscaping and the Bilingual Montessori School of Sharon (BMSS) over snow‑plowing services and repair obligations.
BMSS counsel Jim Grumbach contended that the March 26, 2018 agreement and pre‑meeting communications left the scope of repairs undefined and argued that the trial court erred in denying jury instructions on estoppel, detrimental reliance, and waiver. Grumbach also argued the trial court’s exclusion of detailed insurance documents deprived his client of evidence showing Shoveltown’s awareness of a larger claim and of motive or intent regarding the March agreement.
Shoveltown counsel Grace Garcia replied that evidence about insurance is normally inadmissible in negligence and contract cases except in limited circumstances (ownership/control, motive in a criminal context) and that the jury received adequate evidence — including testimony and estimates — to resolve damages. Garcia defended the jury’s verdict on negligence and breach theories and argued the trial court’s evidentiary rulings were within discretion. The court took the matter under advisement.
