Gage v. HSM Electronic Protection, No. 10-2545 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff purchased a security alarm for her home from HSM Electronic Protection Services, Inc. (HSM), which was later purchased by Stanley Convergent Security Solutions (Stanley). Plaintiff sued Stanley, claiming that Stanley did not respond properly to a low-temperature alarm from Gage's home and therefore was liable for over $250,000 in damages for willful and wanton negligence, intentional misconduct, fraud, and misrepresentation. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the district court's denial of her motion and grant of summary judgment in favor of Stanley, contending that the district court applied an incorrect theory of law. The court held that the district court misapplied Minnesota law where the Minnesota Supreme Court's case law recognizing and developing willful and wanton negligence was still valid, provided a precise definition of the claim, and was therefore binding upon the court. Consequently, the court disagreed with the district court's reliance on New York case law applying gross negligence as "instructive" despite there being a "principled distinction between wanton negligence and gross negligence." The court also held that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the operator, who knew of the peril present in plaintiff's home, exercised reasonable and ordinary care in response. Accordingly, summary judgment was not appropriate and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil case - torts. The Minnesota Supreme Court's case law recognizing and developing willful and wanton negligence is still valid, provides a precise definition of the claim and is binding in federal court; as a result, the district court erred in finding the line between willful and wanton negligence and gross negligence had blurred and in relying on New York case law on the subject; in addition to misapplying state law, the district court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment as there was genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant, who knew of a peril in plaintiff's home, exercised reasonable and ordinary care in response.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.