# Kamco Supply Corp. of Boston v. A-Plus Insulation, Inc. > Superior Court of Maine · December 1, 2008 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809021 ## Case - **Court:** Superior Court of Maine - **Decided:** December 1, 2008 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Robert E. Crowley - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809021 ## Opinion text STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, SS CIVIL ACTION - '~~(~7 ~~',_CV -07~6~3" J ". J _ ',.I -·-r:-r'·--·j ~ '­ KAMCO SUPPLY CORP. OF BOSTON, (\ _.' J ,-) Plaintiff ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT A-PLUS INSULATION, INC., DANIEL COLE, AND DANIEL COLLINS Defendants Before the Court is Plaintiff Kamco Supply Corp.'s (hereafter "Plaintiff" or "Kamco") motion for summary judgment against Defendants Daniel Cole and Daniel Collins as to their liability pursuant to a personal guaranty for the liabilities and obligations of A-Plus Insulation, Inc (hereafter"A-Plus Insulation"), In their opposition, Defendants A-Plus Insulation and Cole move for the entry of summary judgment against Plaintiff Kamco. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff filed a multi-count complaint against the three Defendants alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages in the amount of A-Plus Insulation's outstanding principal balance, accrued interest, and reasonable attorney fees totaling $ 171,522.49 plus pre- and post- judgment interest at the contractual rate (% 18) and court costs. Defendants A-Plus Insulation and Colel assert a cross-claim against Defendant Collins on the grounds of contribution and indemnification. Likewise, Defendant Collins asserts a similar cross-claim against these defendants. 1 Attorney David Turesky represents both A-Plus Insulation and Daniel Cole. 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a Massachusetts corporation that is in the business of providing commercial building products and other related services and products. Defendant A- Plus Insulation is in the business of installing insulation to commercial and residential buildings. Defendant Daniel Cole and Defendant Daniel Collins operated the insulation business as a partnership before incorporating the business on or about May 14, 2003. Presently, Defendant Cole operates and manages A-Plus Insulation, while Defendant Collins resigned as an officer and withdrew from active engagement in the business in the spring of 2007. Defendant Collins remains a current shareholder. 2 The following facts are undisputed as between Defendants A-Plus Insulation and Cole and Plaintiff Kamco. 3 On March 7, 2003, the three Defendants executed and submitted a commercial credit application to the Plaintiff. The commercial credit application consisted of three sections: Credit Application, Personal Guaranty of Account (hereafter "Personal Guaranty"), 4 and Acknowledgement of Receipt of Conditions of Sales and Terms of Payment (collectively referred hereafter as "Commercial Credit Application"). Defendants submitted the Commercial Credit Application to obtain a line of credit from Plaintiff. The Defendants initially requested a line of credit for $10,000, but the Plaintiff only approved a line of credit for $3,500. The Plaintiff's comptroller offered "to re-evaluate this line of credit" if it would not support 2 Defendants A-Plus Insulation and Cole indicate, "A-Plus Insulation, Inc. is no longer in business." Defs.' Opp. to Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. at 2. The company's particular stage of dissolution is unclear. 3 Defendant Collins failed to file any opposition to PlaintiffKamco's motion for summary judgment. "Facts contained in a supporting ... statement of material facts, if supported by record citations.... shall be deemed admitted unless properly controverted. M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4). Defendant Collins' failure to oppose this motion is fatal to his case. The Court will judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the issue of Defendant Collins' personal liability for the liabilities and obligations of A-Plus Insulation. 4 The parties cite primarily Maine cases for their arguments, but occasionally cite Massachusetts authority. The Personal Guaranty states that "[a]1I rights and obligations, hereunder shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the undersigned hereby submits to the jurisdiction of the federal and state courts in Massachusetts." Def.'s Ex. 4. Neither party submits this to the Court for consideration. Auspiciously, Maine and Massachusetts are in agreement on the law relevant to this motion. 2 the business's needs. Ex. A attached to Mr. Cole's Affidavit. The parties never formally enlarged the credit line, but the Plaintiff increased this line of credit substantially in the years following the execution of the documents. During these years, A-Plus Insulation utilized this commercial line of credit and a balance is claimed to be owed to Plaintiff. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review In a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to decide whether the parties' statements of material facts and the referenced record material reveal a genuine issue of material fact. Rogers v. Jackson, 2002 ME 140, .0. Box 287 , Maine 04112-0287 DAVID TURESKY ESQ 477 CONGRESS ST SUITE 400 PORTLAND ME 04103-3409 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809021. Public record. Not legal advice.