659 A.2d 868
10 IER Cases 1196
Page 1
659 A.2d 868
ingestion of poppy seeds can lead to a positive result
Thomas DEVINE
to suggest such a source. Based on this and on infor
v.
drug expert, BIW did not change its decision with re
ROCHE BIOMEDICAL LABORATORIES, et Devine
al.
brought a complaint sounding in tort and con
NorDx. On Devine's appeal in Devine I, we affirmed
Decision No. 7302.
Law Docket No. Cum 94 608.
entered in favor of Roche and NorDx with respect to
Argued March 1, 1995.
vacated the judgment against BIW on its claims in t
Decided June 15, 1995.
against Roche and NorDx on the grounds that they r
Employee required to resign upon confirmation
material
of positive
fact.drug
Pertinent
test forto
opiates
this appeal,
by
we vacated
subcontractor of laboratory that had contracted
breach
with of
employer
contracttoclaim
provide
against
testing
Roche and NorDx a
services sued employer and laboratories, and Superior
employerCourt
and laboratories
with instructions
asserted
for it to consider D
cross-claims against each other. Summary judgment
remand, for
thelaboratories
Superior Court
wasentered
grantedsummary judgm
by the Superior Court, Cumberland County, Fritzsche,
NorDx on J.,
Devine's
and employee
claim toand
be a third party benefici
employer appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court,
On Devine's
637 A.2dmotion
441, affirmed
pursuant
summary
to M.R.Civ.P. 54(b), the
judgments in favor of laboratories with respect
entry
to tort
of aclaims,
final judgment
vacated judgment
in favor of Roche and NorD
We review
the entry
of the summary judgments e
against employer on its claims in tort and for [1]
breach
of contract
against
laboratories, and vacated judgment as to employee's
Roche by
breach
examining
of contract
the evidence
claim in the light most fa
whethertothe
Superior
Court committed
against laboratories and remanded with instructions
consider
employee's
third- an error of la
In order
for Devine
to survive a summary judg
party beneficiary claim. The Superior Court,[2][3]
Brodrick,
J., granted
summary
judgment for laboratories, and employee appealed.
third party
The Supreme
beneficiary
Judicial
on a contract
Court, theory, he must
Rudman, J., held that employee was not third-party
material
beneficiary
fact on theofissue
contract
of BIW's
between
intent that he rec
under the contract. See F.O. Bailey Co., Inc. v. Ledgew
employer and laboratory.
(Me.1992). This he fails to do. It is not enough that
Affirmed.
RUDMAN, Justice.
benefitted from the performance of the contract. Th
Thomas Devine appeals from summary judgments
definite,
entered
whether
in the
it is
Superior
expressed
Court
in the contract itsel
its execution.
Id. If BIW did not intend
(Cumberland County, Brodrick, J.) in favor ofsurrounding
Northern Diagnostic
Laboratories
(NorDx) and Roche Biomedical Laboratories on
Devine's third
beneficiary
enforceable
right,party
any benefit
enjoyed by him as a re
claim. Devine claims intended third party beneficiary
status with
to a
contract renders
him arespect
mere incidental
beneficiary.
sueBath
to enforce
third party
rights."
contract for drug testing confirmation servicescannot
between
Iron Works
(BIW)beneficiary
and
FN1. Restatement
of Contracts302 (1981) provide
NorDx. NorDx provided courier service to Roche,
with whom(Second)
NorDx subcontracted
for the actual testing services. We search the(1)
contract
the between promisor and p
Unlesslanguage
otherwiseand
agreed
circumstances surrounding the formation of the
contract
forintended
a clear indication
that
promise
is an
beneficiary
if recognition of a
BIW intended to give Devine an enforceable benefit
underisits
contract with
NorDx; the intention
beneficiary
appropriate
to effectuate
we find none and therefore affirm.
(a) the performance of the promise will satisfy an ob
The instant case returns following our remand
money
to thetoSuperior
the beneficiary;
Court with
or (b) the circumstances in
instructions to consider Devine's third party beneficiary
claim.
v. Roche
intends to give
theDevine
beneficiary
the benefit of the prom
Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.,637 A.2d 441 (Me.1994)
I). Devine
(2) (hereinafter
An incidentalDevine
beneficiary
is aIbeneficiary who is n
described the underlying facts. In SeptemberNo
1988,
language
BIW offered
in the contract
Devine aindicates
job
BIW's intent t
contingent on his passing a drug test. Two urinalyses
contract provides
conducted
that
byNorDx
BIW onwill
Devine
provide courier se
tested positive for opiates. Roche confirmed the
provide
presence
clinical
of opiates
laboratory
andservices
Devine and report the re
resigned. Devine later informed Wayne McFarland,
BIW's
Manager
of Medicalthat BIW is relying
While the
contract
acknowledges
Administration and Clinical Services, that he knowledge
had learned
and
that
ability
his daily
regarding
poppythe
seed
type of work to
muffin consumption may have caused the positive
language
result.
neither
McFarland
to expand
called
the Roche
work contracted for n
and spoke to a person who identified herself as
the
a doctor
performance
and who
of that
said work
that while
benefit BIW employees
Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
659 A.2d 868
10 IER Cases 1196
Page 2
In the absence of contract language, there must
forbe
analysis
circumstances
and interpretation,
that indicate
Devine
with would clearly
clarity and definiteness that BIW intended tothe
givecontractual
an employee
relationship
such as Devine
between
an the doctor and
enforceable benefit under the contract. In assessing
doctor relationship
the relevantiscircumstances,
all about the health of the pati
courts must be careful to distinguish betweendoctor
the consequences
to address his
to ahealth
third concerns,
party of aa doctor would
contract breach and the intent of a promisee to
primarily
give a third
for the
party
benefit
who might
of his patient.
be
The laborat
affected by that contract breach the right to enforce
primarily
performance
for the benefit
underofthe
thecontract.
patient. Given these
If consequences become the focus of the analysis,
doctor
theand
distinction
the laboratory
between
would
an necessarily imply an
incidental beneficiary and an intended beneficiary
doctorbecomes
to confer
obscured.
an enforceable
Instead,
benefit
the on the patient
performance
of the
laboratory.[FN2]
focus must be on the nature of the contract itself
to determine
if the
contract
FN2.
We offer
of the doctor-patient relat
necessarily implies an intent on the part of the
promisee
to the
giveexample
an enforceable
benefit to a third party. The contract between
differences
BIW and between
NorDx does
thatnot
relationship
meet that and the BIW-e
standard.
actual case, the tort duty owed by a laboratory to the
That contract was intended to help BIW implement
probably
its make
Substance
the third
Abuse
party
Policy
beneficiary
and
claim sup
Procedures. Although that policy appropriately
alsoevinces
exists between
a concernthe
forlaboratory
the well-being
and the employee
test
as implemented
a condition ofthat
employment.
See Stinson v. Phy
of employees who suffer from substance abuse,
BIW
policy
659, 207 safety,
Ill.Dec. quality
96, 646 N.E.2d 930 (2 Dist.1995
because, as the policy notes, substance abuse Ill.App.3d
affects "security,
testingtoclaim
control, productivity and employee health," allDevine's
of whichnegligent
are important
the against NorDx and
economic well-being of the company.
the laboratories owed a tort duty to Devine. Devine f
This recognition of the reasons for the policy and
the related
contract
withany
NorDx
is of material fac
because
he did not
generate
issue
important because it underscores why the nature
Thatoffailure
the contract
left Devine's
itself does
thirdnot
party beneficiary clai
imply an intent on the part of BIW to confer an
laboratories.
enforceable benefit on an employee
like Devine. BIW is not in the health care business.
There is simply
It engaged
nothing
in drug
in the
testing
circumstances
of
of the c
Devine and other employees to advance its economic
betweenobjectives.
BIW and NorDx
Similarly,
that Devine
accords Devine the sta
did not submit to the drug testingat BIW to address
his healthisconcerns.
He by the facts broug
This conclusion
required legally
submitted only because the drug testing was atocondition
the motions
of employment.
for summary judgment.
For both
BIW and Devine, the drug testing was incidental
The to
entry
their
is:employment relationship.
By contrast, if Devine went to a physician whoJudgments
took a urine
affirmed.
sample from him as part
of a physical examination and submitted the sample to an independent laboratory
Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works