Napier v. Quality Builders Warranty Corp.
This text of Napier v. Quality Builders Warranty Corp. (Napier v. Quality Builders Warranty Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The Plaintiffs are homeowners who at the time of purchasing their home were issued a ten year warranty through QBW. The document itself, entitled "Limited Warranty Agreement," contains a precise itemization of what losses, damages and defects pertaining to the structure are covered and delineates the extent of time for each within which a homeowner can make a claim.
Near the top of the first page of the agreement in bold print is the following pertinent language: "NOTE: This Limited Warranty Agreement includes a procedure for informal settlement of disputes." Section VI of the agreement entitled "Complaint and Claim Procedure" outlines, in clear and unambiguous language, the four steps a homeowner must take to seek redress for alleged defects. Importantly, Step Four mandates that arbitration be a "condition precedent to the commencement of any litigation." Section VII of the agreement entitled "Legal Actions" unequivocally informs the homeowner that bypassing the dispute resolution procedure *Page 2 will result in reimbursement to QBW for "all of its costs and expenses of litigation, including attorneys' fees."
Both Plaintiffs signed the enrollment form prefacing the "Limited Warranty Agreement" thereby acknowledging that they had received and read the agreement. See Tiernan v. NVR, Inc., 67 Va. Cir. 63 (2005) (Signature to agreement without separate signatures on "Limited Warranty" itself sufficient to constitute execution of warranty where receipt of copy of same was acknowledged).
"`An action alleging a breach of warranty is a subset of a breach-of-contract action.'" DeSouza v. Lauderdale,
Here, the parties freely contracted to submit any disputes which could not be resolved to arbitration. Under the agreement, a party who ignores this provision and leaps into litigation, as Plaintiffs did here, suffers the clearly articulated consequences of reimbursing the adversary he, in breach, forced into the courthouse. Thus, under the plain terms of the agreement the Plaintiffs are clearly responsible for reimbursement and costs, including a reasonable attorneys' fee. The attestation of the reasonableness of the latter by attorney Keith Kyle stands unchallenged. As to the sum requested, however, the Court would direct counsel to excise from the fee any sums associated with the pursuit of the pro hac vice admission of Pennsylvania attorney John Gill.2
Counsel for QBW Corporation shall prepare an order conforming to this decision.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Napier v. Quality Builders Warranty Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/napier-v-quality-builders-warranty-corp-risuperct-2007.