Opinion
C.A. No. 99C-03-178 (WCC).
Submitted: April 3, 2000.
Decided: May 3, 2000.
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment — GRANTED
Donald J. Detweiler, Esquire, 824 Market Street, Suite 805, P.O. Box 25307, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801. Attorney for Plaintiff, Dietz Enterprises, Inc. t/a Brandywine Brewing Company.
Jeffrey M. Weiner, Esquire, 1332 King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. Attorney for Defendants, Stoltz Management of Delaware, Inc. and Penn Florida Realty, L.P.
ORDER
This 3rd day of May, 2000, after considering Stoltz Management of Delaware, Inc's. and Penn Florida Realty, L.P.'s ("Defendants") motion for partial summary judgment, the Court finds:
1. Defendants own and manage the leased property upon which Dietz Enterprises, Inc. t/a Brandywine Brewing Company (`Plaintiff') runs its restaurant and bar. In its Complaint, Plaintiff claims that Defendants breached their landlord-tenant lease agreement by not repairing a leaking roof. As such, Plaintiff sought, inter alia, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees for breach of contract. In turn, Defendants moved for summary judgment.
2. A hearing on Defendants' motion was held on March 30, 2000, and summary judgment was granted as to the claim that the action could not be brought under the Landlord-Tenant Code because Plaintiff leased a commercial unit. But, this Court denied summary judgment as to the claims for attorney's fees and breach of the lease. As to the claim of whether punitive damages could be brought, the Court reserved decision until further briefing was completed in light of the United States District Court's decision in Pack Process Incorporated v. Global Paper Plastics and the Delaware Supreme Court's decision in E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company v. Pressman. The Court gave Plaintiff an additional two weeks to cite authority contradicting the reasoning in the above cases. None has been provided, so the Court will decide the motion based on the arguments made in the initial briefing and at the hearing.
D. Del., C.A. No. 95-318-MMS, Schwartz, J. (Aug. 19, 1996) (Mem. Op.).
Del. Supr., 679 A.2d 436 (1996).
3. A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the evidence reveals that there is no genuine issue of any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56; Empire of America v. Commercial Credit, Del. Supr., 551 A.2d 433 (1988).
4. The issue raised in this motion is whether Plaintiff's punitive damages claim can be brought in a breach of contract claim between a landlord and a tenant. Plaintiff claims that punitive damages may be available in a contract action if the breach is willful, malicious or taken with a reckless indifference or malice or if the party's breach is egregious. Relying upon Pack Process, supra, Defendants argue that Delaware does not recognize a claim for punitive damages in any contract action beyond those arising in the insurance context.
5. In Pack Process, supra, the Delaware District Court addressed whether punitive damages could be a remedy for a breach of contract. Finding that the Delaware Supreme Court's decision in Pressman, supra, controlled, the District Court held that punitive damages are not available in a breach of contract action unless that action arises in an insurance "bad faith" context. In addition, the District Court found that the Pressman decision, prohibiting recovery of punitive damages in a breach of contract action in the employment context, was not limited to those facts. The District Court reiterated Pressman's reasoning that the insurance "bad faith" claims deserved different treatment due to the unique relationship between the insurer and the insured. Since the District Court found that the action did not arise in an insurance context, it held that punitive damages were not available as a matter of law.
Pack Process at 19.
6. This Court agrees with Judge Schwartz's reasoning in Pack Process. This action is not based on a "bad faith" insurance claim, and the Court will not extend the availability of punitive damages. Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.