Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Employer Ethan Allen, Inc. appealed the Commissioner of the Department of Labor's decision that Claimant Robin Houle's right shoulder condition was compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act.  Claimant experienced pain and weakness in her left shoulder and arm, and her job duties as a furniture refinisher were modified to account for her medical restrictions.  Claimant was assigned to an inventory control/stockroom clerk position where she engaged in a variety of duties.  Interspersed among these duties, claimant also wrapped finished shelves to prepare them for shipping. Claimant was initially treated for the increased symptoms in her shoulder and neck by her primary care provider.  The primary care provider referred her to an orthopedist for further evaluation.  The orthopedist suspected that her left shoulder complaints were most likely due to her repetitive work for Ethan Allen.  He attributed claimant's right shoulder pain to normal wear and tear to be expected of someone claimant's age.  Claimant was dissatisfied with this evaluation and was then referred to an orthopedic surgeon for further evaluation and treatment. In view of the competing expert medical opinions, the Commission relied on a traditional five-part test to evaluate their persuasiveness. Ethan Allen raised numerous arguments on appeal to the Supreme Court. Principal among them, Ethan Allen challenged the Commissioner's use of the five-part test to evaluate competing medical opinions, both as applied in this case and in general.  According to the Employer, the use of this test improperly shifts the burden of proof from claimant to employer, unfairly places employers at a disadvantage, and erroneously employs a "winner take all" approach to evaluating a claimant's expert testimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Ethan Allen failed to show that the Commissioner's findings were clearly erroneous or that her conclusions were unsupported by the findings. The Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision in this case. View "Houle v. Ethan Allen, Inc." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a contract between the City of Rutland and the Vermont Swim Association (VSA). The City granted VSA use of a City facility for a swim meet. A child attending the swim meet was injured when she fell from a piece of playground equipment where the meet was held. The childâs parents, Plaintiffs David and Susan Southwick, sued the City, which then sued VSA. The City sought indemnity from VSA pursuant to the contract between them. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the City, and awarded $700,000 on the indemnity claim. VSA appealed, arguing that the contract contained no express intent to indemnify the City for the Cityâs negligence. The Supreme Court found that the terms and circumstances of the agreement between the City and VSA demonstrated that VSA contracted to indemnify the City for claims such as those resulting from the Southwicksâ injury. The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City.

Homeowners Kenneth and Larissa Trinder filed a declaratory judgment action to establish Defendant Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance Companyâs (Company) obligation to defend or indemnify them regarding an encroachment of their septic system onto their neighborâs property. The Trinders purchased the land in question in 2005. In conjunction with the sale, they purchased title insurance from the Company to defend themselves against situations that might make their title unmarketable or where they would be forced to remove an existing structure on their property because it extends onto someone elseâs. The Trindersâ neighbor was the Mount Holly Community Historical Museum. The Museum called the Trinders to inform them that the Museum intended to expand its facility, and it wanted to reach a settlement with the Trinders that implicated the use of their septic system. The Trinders perceived the Museumâs call (and subsequent letter) as a threat to their title, and contacted their real estate closing attorney, who filed a claim to the Company on their behalf. The Company responded that the matter didnât impact their title. In September, 2008, the Trinders filed suit against the Company seeking to protect its right to have the septic system on the museumâs land, based on the âforced removal and marketabilityâ provisions of the title insurance. Following a bench trial, the court ordered judgment in favor of the Company. The court concluded a plain reading of the insurance policy showed there was no coverage under the forced removal clause, and that the marketability provision did not apply. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courtâs reasoning and affirmed its order on appeal.