| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business.
|
| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
|
|
This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business.
|
You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Clemensen v. Providence Alaska Medical Center (03/27/2009) sp-6350
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before
publication in the Pacific Reporter. Readers are
requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk
of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,
Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878,
e-mail corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
| JAMES CLEMENSEN, | ) |
| ) Supreme Court No. S- 12920 | |
| Appellant, | ) |
| ) Superior Court No. 3AN-06-06607 CI | |
| v. | ) |
| ) O P I N I O N | |
| PROVIDENCE ALASKA MEDICAL | ) |
| CENTER d/b/a PROVIDENCE | ) No. 6350 March 27, 2009 |
| ALASKA HEALTH SYSTEMS | ) |
| and/or PROVIDENCE HEALTH | ) |
| SYSTEMS WASHINGTON, | ) |
| ) | |
| Appellee. | ) |
| ) | |
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State
of Alaska, Third Judicial District,
Anchorage, Sharon L. Gleason, Judge.
Appearances: Richard L. Harren, Law Offices
of Richard L. Harren, P.C., Wasilla, for
Appellant. Daniel W. Hickey and Anne M.
Preston, Gruenstein & Hickey, Anchorage, for
Appellee.
Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Matthews,
Eastaugh, Carpeneti, and Winfree, Justices.
FABE, Chief Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
In March 2003 James Clemensen assisted the hospital
staff at Providence Alaska Medical Center in convincing his wife,
Helen, that she should stay at Providence for an examination of
her mental status. James claims that he was assured by
Providence that by law the hospital could hold Helen for up to
seventy-two hours and that it would not release Helen to anyone
but him. The attending physician who evaluated Helen determined
that she suffered from Alzheimers disease and dementia. The day
after her admission to the hospital, Helen checked out of
Providence and left with her adult daughter, Faye Romer. A few
months later, Helen filed for divorce. In March 2006 James filed
a complaint against Providence, alleging that he suffered
emotional distress caused by Providences release of Helen to her
daughter rather than him. The superior court dismissed Jamess
complaint for failure to state a claim on the basis that economic
damages resulting from a divorce action are not recoverable, that
the two-year statute of limitations bars Jamess tort claims, and
that James lacked the authority to contract with Providence to
prevent it from releasing Helen to her daughter. Because the
superior court correctly analyzed the issues, we affirm its
dismissal of Jamess complaint.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
On March 30, 2003,1 James Clemensen drove his wife of
more than twenty-five years, Helen, to Providence Alaska Medical
Center in Anchorage. The day before, Helen had fallen in the
couples home in Big Lake and suffered a hip injury. During the
evaluation of Helens hip, James told the hospital staff that he
was concerned that Helen was showing signs of confusion,
paranoia, and depression, and he informed the Providence intake
personnel of the suggestions made by at least one healthcare
provider that she was exhibiting signs of dementia and/or
Alzheimer[s disease]. After James inquired about having Helens
mental status assessed, the hospital staff persuaded him to leave
Helen in their care for a mental status examination, and they
assured him that by law they could hold Helen for up to seventy-
two hours and would not release Helen to anyone but him. Based
on these assurances, James assisted the hospital staff in
convincing Helen that she should stay at Providence for further
examination. James told Providence that he would return to visit
Helen the next day.
The attending physician at Providence evaluated Helen,
determining that she suffered from Alzheimers disease and
dementia, with agitation and paranoid features, and that she
would not be competent to agree to or refuse medical advice.
During Helens stay at Providence, she was given an antipsychotic
medication.
The day after Helen checked into Providence, James
called the hospital to ask about her status. A hospital staff
member told James that Helen had checked out of the hospital with
her adult daughter, Faye Romer. According to the staff member,
Helen wanted to leave Providence, and the hospital discharged her
to her daughter, who agreed to take care of her. The staff
member declined to discuss with James Helens mental status
examination and any treatment Helen received, including the use
of the antipsychotic medication.
Before Helen was admitted to Providence, James sought
help caring for Helen from family members, including his
stepdaughter, Romer, who declined to help and did not believe her
mother was in need of care. After Helen was discharged from
Providence, Romer told James that there was nothing wrong with
her mother and that he was the person in the household with the
problem. Romer did not allow James to visit Helen, who was
staying at Romers home.
In the summer of 2003, James was served with divorce
papers. Through the divorce proceedings, James obtained the
records of Helens mental status examination at Providence.
Additionally, an Anchorage psychologist who assessed Helen told
James that Helens Alzheimers disease or dementia caused her to
file the divorce action against him.
Helens guardians and James agreed to dismiss the
divorce action in 2007.
B. Proceedings
On March 31, 2006, James filed a pro se complaint
against Providence. Liberally construing the complaint,2 it
alleges four causes of action: negligence, negligent infliction
of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of
contract.3 It claims that since Helens release from Providence
James has endured the loss of her comfort, society, and
consortium, as well as the costs associated with litigating the
divorce action and mental distress with physical manifestations.
In April 2007 Providence filed a motion under Alaska
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Jamess complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.4
James, who had retained counsel, opposed the motion.
In August 2007 the superior court granted Providences
motion to dismiss. The superior court reasoned that Jamess
contention that he suffered economic damages as a result of the
divorce action is not actionable under our holding in Chizmar v.
Mackie.5 As to Jamess claims for noneconomic harm, the superior
court held that these claims sound in tort and the two-year
statute of limitations for tort actions had already passed when
James filed his complaint. The superior court also concluded
that there was no legally binding contract between James and
Providence, explaining that James could not enter into a contract
with Providence that would bind the hospital to comply with
custodial restrictions on Helen. The superior court noted that
absent guardianship, one adult cannot restrict another adults
freedom of movement, and Jamess attorney acknowledged that Helen
did not have a guardian the day she checked into Providence.
In early October 2007 James filed a motion for
reconsideration, arguing that he could have entered into a
contract on Helens behalf under the statutory provisions
concerning protection of vulnerable adults and that the statute
of limitations was tolled under the discovery rule. Providence
opposed this motion, arguing that Jamess new arguments were
waived and inapplicable to his claims.
In mid-October 2007 James filed a motion for a stay of
the proceedings and for leave to file an amended complaint that
would include Helens claims arising out of the same circumstances
underlying Jamess claims. In an affidavit filed with the motion,
Jamess attorney confirmed that James had recently been appointed
as Helens co-conservator and that as her co-conservator he was
considering bringing her claims against Providence on her behalf.
Providence opposed the motion, arguing that whether Helen can
bring her own claims against Providence has no bearing on whether
Jamess complaint asserted any legally cognizable cause of action
against Providence.
In late October 2007 the superior court denied Jamess
motion for reconsideration for the reasons set forth in
Providences opposition and held that Jamess motion to stay the
proceedings was moot in light of this denial. The superior court
entered a final judgment in favor of Providence. James appeals.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A grant of a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure
to state a claim under Alaska Civil Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de
novo.6 In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, we liberally
construe the complaint and treat all factual allegations in the
complaint as true.7 Such dismissals are viewed with disfavor and
should only be granted on the rare occasion where it appears
beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of the claims that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.8
In other words, the complaint need only allege a set of facts
consistent with and appropriate to some enforceable cause of
action.9
We review the trial courts procedural decisions for
abuse of discretion.10 We will reverse a ruling for abuse of
discretion only when left with a definite and firm conviction,
after reviewing the whole record, that the trial court erred in
its ruling.11
IV. DISCUSSION
A. James Fails To Allege a Tort Claim upon Which Relief
Can Be Granted.
1. Chizmar v. Mackies rejection of wrongful divorce
actions precludes James from seeking damages
arising from Helens divorce action.
Jamess tort claims of negligence, negligent infliction
of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty12 are based on
the premise that Providence breached a duty to James by releasing
Helen to her daughter and that this breach led to the breakdown
of their marriage. As James puts it in his complaint:
Had Providence released my wife to myself,
and, informed me of the diagnosis and
assessment made of her, and, informed me of
the medications provided to her, their side
effects, their benefits, and, if Providence
had told me to follow-up with appropriate
medical providers, and, make appropriate
provisions for her living circumstances given
the medications appropriate for her care,
there would have been no divorce action filed
between us.
In other words, James claims that because of Providences conduct,
he suffered damages from Helens divorce action.
But we have previously rejected such claims based on
divorce. In Chizmar v. Mackie, we limited a patients potential
recovery against her physician who misdiagnosed her with having
AIDS.13 Among the damages sought by the patient were those for
the economic losses arising from her divorce, which she claimed
was the result of the physicians alleged misconduct.14 We held
that as a matter of law the patient could not recover any
economic losses that she suffered as a result of her divorce.15
Recognizing other courts that have uniformly rejected wrongful
divorce actions on proximate cause and public policy grounds,16 we
agreed with a Wisconsin courts reasons for declining to recognize
these actions:
We find the reasoning in Prill v. Hampton,
154 Wis. 2d 667, 453 N.W.2d 909, 914-15 (App.
1990), persuasive. In Prill, the court
refused to allow the plaintiff to recover on
her claim that her divorce was the result of
the injuries sustained by her husband at the
hands of the defendant. The court reasoned:
. . . .
Failure of a marriage is rarely
attributable to a single cause. In some
instances, there may be evidence that
the spouses injuries were, in part, the
cause of the marriages failure. For the
jury to properly assess the amount of
damages, however, it is necessary to
show both a causal relationship and the
extent or degree this factor played in
the failure of the marriage. Such an
inquiry would open to scrutiny very
personal issues, not only of the spouse
claiming damages, but also of the
injured spouse. This factor, along with
the difficulty of the jury in
determining the extent to which any
single cause may have contributed to the
failure of the marriage, requires that
such claims be rejected.[17]
We further explained that it is difficult to imagine that a jury
will be able to isolate the fault attributable to the third
partys actions, from the fault of the two spouses and the
weakness inherent in the marriage.18
The superior court determined that our holding in
Chizmar that damages for economic losses resulting from divorce
are not recoverable forecloses James from seeking any economic
damages suffered as a result of Helen filing for divorce. James
argues that Chizmar is distinguishable for four reasons: (1) in
Chizmar the couple divorced but in the present case James and
Helen did not divorce, though divorce proceedings depleted their
marital assets; (2) the cause of the marital difficulties in
Chizmar and the present case differ; (3) both spouses in Chizmar
were mentally competent, whereas in the present case Helen was
determined to lack mental competency; and (4) only tort claims
were asserted in Chizmar but both tort and contract claims were
asserted in the present case. None of the differences cited by
James, however, is relevant to the rationale of our holding that
economic losses resulting from divorce are not recoverable as a
matter of law. As in Chizmar, James is asking us to scrutinize
very personal issues related to the relationship between himself
and Helen in order to determine the degree to which Providences
actions caused Helen to file for divorce. We recognized in
Chizmar that it is difficult, if not impossible, to attribute the
failure of a marriage to a single cause or event.19
Providence asks us to extend our holding in Chizmar to
cover all of the damages alleged by James. Under our rationale
in Chizmar, damages caused by the filing of a divorce action
whether economic or emotional distress are not recoverable. But
Chizmars holding does not foreclose recovery of damages unrelated
to the divorce proceedings.20 Nonetheless, as we discuss next,
James is precluded from recovering any such damages because his
tort claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
2. The statute of limitations for tort causes of
action bars James from bringing his tort claims.
The superior court ruled that the statute of
limitations for tort actions had already passed when James filed
his complaint. We agree. The statute of limitations for a tort
action is two years.21 Ordinarily, the period of limitations for
a tort begins to run on the date the plaintiff is injured.22 In
the present case, Helen arrived at Providence on March 30, 2003,
and checked out the next day.23 James learned that Helen had been
released to her daughter when he called the hospital on March 31,
2003. Thus, James had until March 31, 2005, to bring his tort
claims against Providence.24 But James did not file his complaint
against Providence until March 31, 2006.
James argues that his tort suit is timely because the
discovery rule applies to toll the running of the statute of
limitations. According to James, the statute of limitations did
not begin to run until 2005 when he discovered that Helens
Alzheimers disease or dementia prompted her to file for divorce.
But to the extent that Jamess claims are based on the divorce,
they are precluded as a matter of law. Under the discovery rule,
a cause of action accrues when a person discovers, or reasonably
should have discovered, the existence of all elements essential
to the cause of action.25 It is not apparent which elements of
Jamess tort claims against Providence he would have discovered
had he made a reasonable inquiry as to Helens mental state. In
any event, when Helen was released from Providence on March 31,
2003, James was aware that she was exhibiting signs of dementia
and/or Alzheimer[s disease]. This notice was sufficient to
prompt James to make a reasonable inquiry into the relationship
between Helens mental status and the harms that he allegedly
suffered after Helens release from the hospital.
James next argues that the superior court erred in
failing to hold that Providence was equitably estopped from
invoking its statute of limitations defense.26 James claims that
Providence failed to disclose facts to him where it had a duty to
do so:
Providence withheld important facts that
would have made [James] aware of the need to
protect his rights by filing tort claims
within two years of his wifes discharge from
the hospital. Providence released [Jamess]
wife into the custody of his stepdaughter,
leading him to believe she was competent and
had no serious mental or physical illnesses.
Providence had a duty to inform [James] of
his wifes mental state so that he could
initiate appropriate guardianship proceedings
to protect his wife.
But as Providence points out, it was legally obligated to not
disclose the results of Helens assessment to James without her
written consent.27
James also relies on Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc.28 to
support his contention that the superior court should have held
an evidentiary hearing on the statute of limitations issue before
dismissing Jamess complaint. In Cikan, we reversed the superior
courts summary judgment order and remanded the case to the
superior court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine
whether the statute of limitations on the plaintiffs claim was
tolled by her disputed mental incompetency.29 We reasoned that
when the issue of whether a summary judgment motion should be
granted depends on resolving a factual dispute in order for the
court to apply the statute of limitations, the court must
ordinarily resolve the factual dispute at a preliminary
evidentiary hearing in advance of trial because the task of
interpreting and applying a statute of limitations traditionally
falls within the province of the courts.30 But in this case there
was no factual dispute that had to be resolved in a evidentiary
hearing.31
Finally, James argues that the superior court erred in
failing to acknowledge that Helens tort claims were tolled by her
mental incompetency. This argument, however, has no bearing on
whether James properly stated a claim in his complaint. Rather,
it concerns the possible claims that James sought to assert as
Helens co-conservator after he filed his motion for
reconsideration.32
B. James Fails To Allege a Breach of Contract Claim upon
Which Relief Can Be Granted.
The superior court reasoned that Jamess breach of
contract claim could not survive because there was no legally
binding contract between James and Providence regarding Helens
release. The superior court ruled that a third person cannot
enter into a contract with a care provider to restrict the
patients freedom of movement if the third person is not in a
custodial relationship with the patient. James argues that
agency principles and the statutory provisions concerning
vulnerable adults gave him the authority to contract with
Providence for Helens care. Providence responds that these
arguments are untimely and thus waived.
Two well-established waiver principles apply to this
case. First, [w]e will not consider on appeal new arguments
which (1) depend on new or controverted facts, (2) are not
closely related to the appellants arguments [in the superior
court], and (3) could not have been gleaned from the pleadings,
unless the new issue raised establishes plain error.33 Second, we
will not consider an issue raised for the first time in a motion
for reconsideration.34
In his complaint, James did not allege circumstances
suggesting the existence of an agency relationship nor did he
assert that he was Helens guardian when she checked into
Providence for an assessment of her mental status. James also
failed to make these arguments in opposing Providences motion to
dismiss. James first raised his vulnerable adult argument in his
motion for reconsideration, asserting that statutory provisions
concerning vulnerable adults are designed for the protection of
people like himself and his wife and thus should be deemed, as a
matter of public policy, implied terms in the contract of care
which was created between the hospital and [James]. Because
James failed to make this argument prior to his motion for
reconsideration, it is waived.35
V. CONCLUSION
Because Jamess claim for damages arising from the
divorce action is precluded by our holding in Chizmar v. Mackie,
because his tort claims are barred by the statute of limitations
for tort causes of action, and because there was no legally
binding contract between James and Providence concerning Helens
release, we AFFIRM the superior courts dismissal of Jamess
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
_______________________________
1 The facts are drawn from Jamess dismissed complaint.
Because the superior court granted Providences motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim under Alaska Civil Rule 12(b)(6),
the factual allegations of Jamess complaint are assumed to be
true. See Jacob v. State, Dept of Health & Soc. Servs., Office
of Childrens Servs., 177 P.3d 1181, 1184 (Alaska 2008) (noting
that we treat a dismissed complaints factual allegations as if
they were true when we review a grant of a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)). But March 30, 2003, may be the
incorrect date. In its answer, Providence states that according
to its records, Helen arrived at the hospitals emergency room on
March 31, 2003, and checked into the hospitals psychiatric
observation unit that day.
2 See Jacob, 177 P.3d at 1184 (We review the superior
courts grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) de
novo, construing the dismissed complaint liberally, and assuming
the truth of the facts it alleges. (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
3 Jamess complaint also alleged that Providence
interfered with his prospective economic advantage and
contractual relations and that Providence failed to warn him of
the results of his wifes assessment, but James does not argue
these claims on appeal.
4 Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides in
relevant part: [T]he following defenses may at the option of the
pleader be made by motion: . . . (6) failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted . . . .
5 896 P.2d 196, 214 (Alaska 1995) (holding that economic
losses resulting from divorce are not recoverable on proximate
cause and public policy grounds).
6 Jacob, 177 P.3d at 1184.
7 Id.
8 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
9 Odom v. Fairbanks Meml Hosp., 999 P.2d 123, 128 (Alaska
2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
10 Prentzel v. State, Dept of Pub. Safety, 169 P.3d 573,
592 (Alaska 2007).
11 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
12 It is possible that James had intended his allegation
of breach of fiduciary duty to be a contract action and thus not
subject to our analysis of the applicability of Chizmar v. Mackie
and of the two-year statute of limitations for tort actions.
Whether a claim of breach of fiduciary duty sounds in tort or
contract depends on the source of the fiduciary duty. See Lee
Houston & Assocs., Ltd. v. Racine, 806 P.2d 848, 852-55 (Alaska
1991) (holding that an action for breach of fiduciary duty
arising out of a professional service relationship that primarily
involved economic injury sounds in contract and thus the statute
of limitations for contract actions applies). Although Jamess
complaint does not suggest the source of the fiduciary duty that
he claims Providence owes him, the source may be a duty imposed
by tort law or, in the alternative, the alleged contract between
James and Providence. Here, we treat his claim of breach of
fiduciary duty as a tort action. But even if James had intended
his claim to be a contract action, it would still fail for the
reasons explained in subpart IV.B.
13 896 P.2d 196-98, 212-14 (Alaska 1995).
14 Id. at 198.
15 Id. at 211-12.
16 Id. at 211.
17 Id. at 211-12 (quoting Prill v. Hampton, 453 N.W.2d
909, 914-15 (Wis. App. 1990)).
18 Id. at 212 n.14.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 214 (holding that the appellant may be able to
recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress
but limiting the appellants potential recovery to preclude any
economic damages flowing from her divorce).
21 AS 09.10.070.
22 Sengupta v. Wickwire, 124 P.3d 748, 753 (Alaska 2005).
23 Because of the procedural posture of this case, all
factual allegations in Jamess complaint are taken to be true, but
according to Providences records, Helen arrived at the hospital
on March 31, 2003. See supra note 1.
24 See Solomon v. Interior Regl Hous. Auth., 140 P.3d 882,
884 (Alaska 2006) (accepting the parties contention that the
former employees claim accrued on September 9, 1999, and the
statute of limitations would normally have run on September 9,
2001); David v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 557 P.2d 1133, 1134 (Alaska
1976) (noting that the [p]etitioner was injured on July 3, 1974,
and that [t]he limitation period for this cause of action
terminated on July 3, 1976); see also Inclusion or Exclusion of
First and Last Day for Purposes of Statutes of Limitations, 20
A.L.R.2d 1-2, at 1249-54 (1951) (explaining computation of time
under the statute of limitations).
25 Johns Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 129 P.3d 919, 923 (Alaska
2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
26 See generally Williams v. Williams, 129 P.3d 428, 432
(Alaska 2006) (discussing the elements of equitable estoppel).
27 See AS 47.30.845 (providing that a patients
confidential health records may not be disclosed to a third
person without the patients written consent, unless the third
person is among the persons covered by the statute).
28 125 P.3d 335 (Alaska 2005).
29 Id. at 342.
30 Id. at 339.
31 James also contends that the superior court erred in
dismissing his complaint because the superior court fail[ed] to
make a separate determination for each of the allegations in the
complaint. But the superior court provided a full and well-
reasoned explanation for its decision. Jamess argument that the
dismissal was erroneous because he alleged numerous damages in
his complaint is also unavailing. We have long recognized that
to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion the plaintiff must properly
plead all elements of the claim, not just the element of damages.
See Linck v. Barokas & Martin, 667 P.2d 171, 173 & n.4 (Alaska
1983).
32 James also argues that the superior court erred in
denying his motion for a stay of the proceedings and for leave to
amend his complaint to add Helen as a party under Civil Rule
19(a) and to add her claims under Civil Rule 15(a). The superior
court ordered that [i]n light of the foregoing [dismissal of
Jamess complaint for failure to state a claim and the order
denying Jamess motion for reconsideration], the motion to stay
this matter until 11-16-07 is denied as moot. James failed to
file a copy of the amended complaint or even allude to which
causes of action he intended to bring on Helens behalf. But
Jamess argument to add Helen as a party under Civil Rule 19 is
difficult to comprehend given that as the plaintiff he had the
discretion to determine the parties to his case. See 3 James Wm.
Moore et al., Moores Federal Practice 19.02[1] (3d ed. 2003)
(explaining that while plaintiffs generally have the discretion
to determine the party structure of their actions and to use the
permissive party joinder provisions of Rule 20, Rule 19
prescribes when other parties, absentees, and the courts
themselves may override the autonomy of plaintiffs to structure
the litigation). In any event, James waived this argument by
failing to raise it below. See Eagle v. State, Dept of Revenue,
153 P.3d 976, 981-82 (Alaska 2007).
33 Kaiser v. Umialik Ins., 108 P.3d 876, 881 (Alaska 2005)
(first alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
34 E.g., Haines v. Cox, 182 P.3d 1140, 1144 & n.13 (Alaska
2008); Stadnicky v. Southpark Terrace Homeowners Assn, 939 P.2d
403, 405 (Alaska 1997).
35 See Stadnicky, 939 P.2d at 405 (An issue raised for the
first time in a motion for reconsideration is not timely.). Even
if this argument were timely, it is without merit. Although
chapter 24 of title 47 provides the Department of Health and
Social Services with the authority to appoint surrogate decision
makers to obtain consent for vulnerable adults who are incapable
of consenting to the services that they need, a spouse is not
entitled to automatically assume the role of a surrogate decision
maker when, as is the case here, the health department had not
sought the spouses consent for services. See AS 47.24.016(a).
Jamess agency argument is also both untimely and unavailing
because if James had been acting as Helens agent, he would have
formed a contract between Helen and Providence that Helen could
enforce, not James. See Restatement (Second) of Agency 363 cmt.
a (1958) (The fact that an agent negotiates a contract for a
principal does not enable him to maintain an action in his own
name against the other party thereto for its breach . . . .).
 |
| Case Law Statutes, Regs & Rules Constitutions Miscellaneous |
|
