In Landaverde v. Navarro, Nos. 1719, 2089, 2018 Md. App. LEXIS 721, at *31 (App. July 26, 2018), the Maryland Court of Special Appeals unanimously found in favor of plaintiffs in their appeal of orders of summary judgment granted to service technicians, finding that the contractors owed a duty to inspect and to warn of dangers associated with damage to HVAC flue pipes.
This case arose from the death of five people as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning. It was determined that the poisoning was attributable to a bathroom ventilation fan negligently connected to a flue intended to carry carbon monoxide gas from the boiler and water heater through the ceiling and roof. The plaintiffs sued the home warranty company as well as the contractors who were referred to the homeowner by the home warranty company to perform repairs on two separate occasions to the hot water heater and the boiler. The plaintiffs alleged that, despite there being evidence of rust to the flue pipe, the contractors did not warn the homeowner of the potential danger as a result of the flue pipe being structurally compromised.
Defendants, however, maintained that they were not hired to repair the flue pipe and further, repairs to the flue were specifically excluded from coverage under the home warranty agreement. Therefore, they did not owe any duty to the plaintiffs to either repair the flue or to warn of the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning from the damaged flue. The Circuit Court of Prince George’s County granted summary judgment in favor of the contractors, finding that, given the home warranty agreement specifically excluded repairs to the flue, there was no breach of contract and no independent basis for negligence as there was no duty owed to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs appealed. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals evaluated 1) whether the home warranty agreement absolved the contractors of any duty to address the rust and holes of the flue pipes and 2) whether the contractors had an independent duty to inspect the flue pipes and to warn the homeowners of the dangers associated with their condition. As to the first issue, the Court found that the home warranty agreement merely enumerated those services that would be paid by the home warranty company and that the agreement even contemplated that there may be services that the independent contractor would need to perform outside of the covered repairs. Nothing in the agreements, either between the contractors and the home warranty company or between the homeowner and the home warranty company, controlled the type of work the contractors would do in the performance of HVAC repair. Therefore, the home warranty agreement did not limit the contractors’ scope of duties.
As to the second issue, the Court evaluated whether the contractors had a duty to address the rust and holes on the flue pipes. The Court stated that the factors considered when determining if there is a duty are “the nature of the harm likely to result from a failure to exercise due care, and the relationship that exists between the parties.” However, when the risk is that of personal injury (as opposed to mere economic loss), no special relationship between the parties need be shown and the “the principal determinant of duty becomes foreseeability.” Additionally, a duty to act with reasonable care would be imposed upon those in occupations requiring a “peculiar skill.”
Here, the risk of harm for failure to inspect, repair, or warn was indeed personal injury and death. Moreover, the contractors had particular skills as it relates to HVAC repair and inspection and thus were in a better position to evaluate and to warn of the dangers of carbon monoxide exposure associated with faulty flues connected to boilers and hot water heaters. Finally, the Court found that “the burden to HVAC professionals, who can avail themselves of training and insurance, is minimal while the consequences of imposing a duty of exercising care is a great benefit to the community because of the risks of personal injury and death from carbon monoxide escaping from gas powered boilers and hot water heaters.” Consequently, the Court concluded that the contractors had a duty to inspect the flue and to “take reasonable steps to protect the occupants of the home,” including either to warn the homeowners or to repair or replace the flue. The case was thus remanded to the circuit court for a determination by a jury whether the service contractors breached such duty.
The case expands the duty owed by repair service companies, requiring them to inspect and to warn of any potential hazards associated with those systems within the companies’ particular skill set or scope of their hire. Note, though, that this opinion is from the intermediate appellate court, and it is possible that the appeal may be later heard in Maryland’s highest court.
At MacDonald Law Group, we handle a broad array of construction claims and litigation. Should you have any questions on construction litigation topics, please contact us using the email or phone contacts found on our website at www.macdonaldlawgroup.com.