Chadbourne v. Global Partners

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: April 24, 2013
• Docket: CUMcv-12-415
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. C~-f?--4l6 ---cvJ--- Clt!li ~ IJ~D/3 HERB CHADBOURNE,

Plaintiff

v. ORDER STATE OF ~.~,::~lNE ,• o~~ Cumbsrlar.d, s~. C!er.u; wee GLOBAL PARTNERS LP, APR 2 ~ 2013 Defendant RECEI\/ED Before the court is a motion to dismiss by defendant Global Partners.

The amended complaint filed by plaintiff Herb Chadbourne seeks to recover for

intentional infliction of emotional distress and for defamation. For some unknown

reason, although the amended complaint asserts that Chadbourne received a right to

sue letter from the Human Rights Commission and refers to a hostile work

environment, Chadbourne does not assert any cause of action under the Human Rights

Act.

The amended complaint does allege that Chadbourne's claims arose when he

was an employee of Alliance Energy LLC and later of Global Partners, which acquired

the assets of Alliance in 2012. With its motion to dismiss, Global Partners has submitted

an affidavit stating that both Alliance Energy and Global Partners maintained workers

compensation insurance at all relevant times. Although that affidavit goes beyond the

pleadings, the court will accept the affidavit because Chadbourne does not dispute the

existence of workers compensation coverage.

Chadbourne instead argues that the immunity and exclusivity provisions in the

Workers Compensation Act, 39-A M.R.S. §§ 104,408, do not apply because Chadbourne is suing Global Partners under the "dual persona" doctrine to enforce legal obligations

that are entirely separate from the obligations that Alliance Energy and Global Partners

had as Chadbourne's employer. However, all of the allegations in the complaint relate

to actions of Alliance Energy and Global Partners as Chadbourne's employer. On the

face of the complaint, therefore, Global Partners is entitled to assert workers

compensation immunity.

This bars Chadbourne's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Cole

v. Chandler, 2000 ME 104 'l[ 13, 752 A.2d 1189. It also bars Chadbourne's claim for

emotional distress resulting from alleged defamation. It would not, however,

necessarily bar a claim for economic injury resulting from alleged defamation. ld. While

the amended complaint is not a model of clarity (quite the contrary), it does refer to

claims for back pay and reputational injury. This requires the court to at least consider

the alternate grounds offered by Global Partners in support of the dismissal of

Chadbourne's defamation claim.

Specifically, Global Partners argues that the amended complaint fails to state a

claim for defamation. As Global Partners notes, with one exception the amended

complaint does not allege that defamatory statements were published to third parties -

an essential element of a defamation cause of action. Lester v. Powers, 596 A.2d 65, 69

(Me. 1991). 1 On the face of the complaint, therefore, Chadbourne's generalized

defamation claims are subject to dismissal.

1 It may be possible to infer that some of the allegedly defamatory statements were made to the Human Rights Commission. See amended complaint

2 The only alleged defamation which Chadbourne alleges was published to third

parties is the claim that his supervisor called him a liar in front of customers. There is an

1872 case which suggests that this would not constitute defamation. Small v. Clewley,

60 Me. 262, 265 (1872). The court has some doubt whether Small is still good law.

However, because Chadbourne does not allege that he suffered any economic harm

from being called a liar- a requirement if he is to escape the immunity offered by the

Workers Compensation Act - the court will dismiss Chadbourne's defamation claim

with leave to replead.

If he chooses to file a second amended complaint, Chadbourne shall be required

to specify whether he is asserting a claim under the Maine Human Rights Act and, if so,

shall be required submit a pleading that states a claim under that Act. If Chadbourne

seeks to replead, he shall serve and file a second amended complaint by May 14, 2013. If

he does not do so, this action will be dismissed without further notice or further order.

The entry shall be:

Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted with prejudice as to Chadbourne's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. As to Chadbourne's remaining claims, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted with leave to replead as set forth above. The Clerk is directed to incorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a).

Dated: April ~ 2013

Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court

whether defenses such as truth and privilege should be raised. Picard v. Brennan, 307 A.2d 833, 834-35 (Me. 1973).

3 HERB CHADBOURNE VS GLOBAL PARTNERS LP UTN:AOCSsr -2012-0097216 CASE #:PORSC-CV-2012-00415

01 0000001460 DUNN PATRICIA 10 FREE STREET PO BOX 4510 PORTLAND ME 04112 F GLOBAL PARTNERS LP DEF RTND 01/17/2013

02 0000008401 RIELLY BRENDAN 10 FREE STREET PO BOX 4510 PORTLAND ME 04112 F GLOBAL PARTNERS LP DEF RTND 01/17/2013

03 0000009251 ROBINSON RANDY L PO BOX 10653 PORTLAND ME 04104 F HERB CHADBOURNE PL RTND 10/03/2012