Kizzie Pinet v. Mark T. Moore

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0485, Kizzie Pinet v. Mark T. Moore, the
court on September 9, 2024, issued the following order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted
on appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See
Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The defendant, Mark T. Moore, appeals the order of the
Superior Court (Delker, J.), following a bench trial, awarding judgment to the
plaintiff, Kizzie Pinet, for the cost of truck repairs that should have been
covered by an extended warranty that she purchased from the defendant. The
defendant argues that the trial court erred in its award because, he asserts, the
plaintiff failed to show the extent or amount of her damages. We affirm.

We will uphold a trial court’s factual findings unless they lack support in
the record. Gaucher v. Waterhouse, 175 N.H. 291, 295 (2022). We defer to the
trial court’s judgment in determining the credibility of witnesses and the weight
to be given to the evidence. Id. at 296. We consider the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prevailing party and will overturn a damage award only if
we find it to be clearly erroneous. Bailey v. Sommovigo, 137 N.H. 526, 530
(1993).

The plaintiff purchased a truck from the defendant for use in her
landscaping business. At the same time, she purchased an extended warranty
from the defendant. Shortly thereafter, the truck broke down. She testified
that she paid $6,271.40 to repair it. The plaintiff testified, and the trial court
found, that when she purchased the truck, the defendant knew that she
intended to use it for her business. However, when she made a claim under
the warranty, she discovered that the defendant sold her a warranty that did
not cover commercial use.

To support her damage claim, the plaintiff sought to introduce an invoice
from the repair shop. The defendant objected on hearsay grounds, noting that
the plaintiff did not have a witness from the repair shop to testify at trial. The
trial court ruled that the invoice was inadmissible hearsay. However, as the
trial court found, the plaintiff testified that she paid $6,271.40 to repair the
damage and restore the truck to operational condition. In its final order, the
court noted that “[w]hile the defendant successfully objected to the admission
of the [invoice] into evidence, the defense did not otherwise challenge [the
plaintiff’s] testimony about the cost of the repair or whether the repair should
have been covered under the terms of the service contract.” The trial court
noted that the warranty contract included a $100 deductible and found the
plaintiff’s testimony sufficient to prove that she sustained $6,171.40 in
damages. We conclude that the record supports the trial court’s damage
award. See Gaucher, 175 N.H. at 295.

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Bassett, Donovan, and Countway, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2