Chancery Dismisses Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Where Parties’ Commercial Relationship Was One of Ordinary Care

Morris James LLP
Contact

Nieves v. Insight Building Co., LLC, C.A. No. 2019-0464-SG (Del. Ch. Aug. 4, 2020)

The Court of Chancery used an unlikely vehicle — a dispute over stormwater drainage — to further explain the limits of common law fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs/Homeowners experienced drainage issues and brought several claims against their builder, as well as the developer (“Developer”) from which the builder had purchased lots. One such claim was that Developer had breached a fiduciary duty to Homeowners, even though Plaintiffs did not purchase their lots directly from Developer or otherwise have a contractual or commercial relationship with Developer. Plaintiffs/Homeowners alleged Developer “owes a common law fiduciary duty … because Plaintiffs reposed a special trust in and reliance on the judgment of the developer.” (internal citations omitted.)

But the Court explained that, even assuming arguendo some commercial relationship existed between Homeowners and Developer, it was not a relationship with fiduciary duties. Rather, fiduciary duties arise where a special duty exists for one party to protect another’s interests or where one party places special trust in the judgment of a second party who exercises domination and influence over the first. Moreover, because fiduciary relationships evolve from the law of trusts, the relationships involve parties with a common goal -- the good of the protected party. As alleged, Developer sought to sell land for profit, and Homeowners contracted to purchase land. There was no common goal and no special trust, so the transaction involved only ordinary care. Homeowners in fact alleged a breach of that standard, in bringing a common law tort claim for negligence. Broadly imposing fiduciary duties on this sort of routine commercial relationship “would hamstring parties’ ability to self order, with perverse effects on efficiency[,] ... the right to contract[,] ... [and] commercial affairs[.]” The Court, therefore, dismissed Homeowners’ fiduciary duty claim.

Written by:

Morris James LLP
Contact
more
less

Morris James LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.