 |
|
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Zanakis-Pico v. Cutter Dodge6/14/2002
MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, RAMIL, AND ACOBA, JJ.; WITH ACOBA, J., ALSO CONCURRING SEPARATELY
The plaintiffs-appellants/cross-appellees, Mary Zanakis-Pico and Thomas M. Pico (the Picos) appeal from the amended judgment of the first circuit court, the Honorable Gary W.B. Chang presiding, filed on November 4, 1999. The Picos argue that the circuit court erred in: (1) partially granting the motion of the defendant-appellee/cross-appellant Cutter Dodge, Inc., dba Cutter Dodge Chrysler Plymouth Jeep Eagle (Cutter), for partial summary judgment as to damages, based on its conclusion that the Picos were not entitled to "benefit-of-the-bargain" damages in connection with their claim pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 480 (1993 & Supp. 2000); (2) partially granting Cutter's motion for dismissal, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, based on its conclusion that the Picos had failed to establish cognizable damages under HRS chapter 480; and (3) granting Cutter's motion in limine for dismissal or, in the alternative, for directed verdict, concluding that Cutter was entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding all of the Picos' remaining claims as set forth in their third amended complaint and subsequent more definite statement of claims -- specifically, their contract and, liberally construing their opening brief on appeal, their common law claims grounded in either negligence or negligent misrepresentation, false advertising, and fraud.
Cutter cross-appeals, urging that the circuit court erred in: (1) partially denying its motion for partial summary judgment as to damages by failing to dismiss the Picos' claim for punitive damages; (2) partially denying Cutter's motion to dismiss the Picos' third amended complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, by failing to dismiss the Picos' third amended complaint in its entirety; and (3) partially denying Cutter's request for attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions, by failing to enter an award pursuant to HRS ยงยง 481A-4 (1993) and 607-14.5 (1993) and Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 11 (1990).
We hold that the circuit court erred in concluding that the Picos failed to allege cognizable damages with respect to their statutory claim under HRS chapter 480, their common law claim for relief grounded in fraud, and any other cognizable common law tort claims that the Picos sufficiently pled. We further hold that the circuit court correctly ruled that Cutter was entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the Picos' contract claim. Finally, on the record before us, we hold that the circuit court did not err in denying Cutter's motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court's amended judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. BACKGROUND
This dispute involves an advertisement by Cutter appearing in the September 12, 1997 editions of both of the Honolulu daily newspapers of general circulation -- the Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin. In large print at the top, the advertisement announced a "$13,000,000 INVENTORY REDUCTION" and claimed, "We're #1 For a Reason! Volume = Low Prices[.] Come on Down and find out why!! $0 Cash Down!*" (outline and bold print in original). At the bottom were five lines of text, including two asterisks, in a much smaller type-face. The first asterisk was followed by the qualification: "$0 Cash Down on all Gold Key Plus pymnt. vehicles."
The main body of the advertisement, between the introductory text and the fine print, included pictorial depictions of and specific terms for fourteen different model vehicles. In each instance, the advert
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
|
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|