Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A group of plaintiffs, including a medical practice, individual physicians, a medical society, and two patients, brought various claims against a health insurer, alleging that the insurer interfered with doctor-patient relationships, denied or delayed coverage for medical services, and caused significant harm to patients. The claims included tortious interference with contractual rights, unfair competition, RICO violations, and emotional distress, with specific factual allegations that the insurer’s actions led to worsened medical outcomes for the patients involved.The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit reviewed the insurer’s motion to compel arbitration based on arbitration clauses in provider agreements and member handbooks. Instead of determining whether the claims were subject to arbitration, the circuit court focused on the alleged unconscionability of the contracts as a whole, finding them to be contracts of adhesion and unconscionable, and denied the motion to compel arbitration. The court also denied summary judgment as to one patient’s claims and did not stay the medical society’s claims pending arbitration.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi reviewed the case and held that the circuit court erred by not following the required analytical framework for arbitrability. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s order in part, holding that claims arising under the Participating Physician Agreement must be referred to arbitration because the agreement delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Claims under the Medicare and QUEST Agreements were also subject to arbitration, as the arbitration clauses were not shown to be substantively unconscionable. However, the Court held that the claims of one patient and the physician as a patient were not subject to mandatory arbitration, and another patient’s claims were not subject to a grievance and appeals clause. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Frederick A. Nitta, M.D., Inc. v. Hawaii Medical Service Association." on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs from Kauaʻi, Oʻahu, and Maui challenged a series of emergency proclamations issued by the Governor of Hawaiʻi, beginning in July 2023, which declared affordable housing a state emergency. These proclamations suspended various state laws and established expedited processes for approving and constructing housing projects, including the creation of a State Lead Housing Officer and a Build Beyond Barriers Working Group. The initial proclamations allowed all housing projects, not just affordable housing, to benefit from the suspended laws and expedited certification. Over time, the proclamations were revised, narrowing their scope and transferring certification authority to the Hawaiʻi Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC).The plaintiffs first filed a writ of quo warranto against the State Lead Housing Officer and the Working Group, arguing that the proclamations exceeded the governor’s statutory authority and violated constitutional provisions. The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit dismissed the petition without prejudice, finding the mechanism inapplicable and the claims moot, but allowed amendment. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint for declaratory relief against the governor and HHFDC, which was also dismissed for lack of standing and procedural defects. Plaintiffs appealed, and after briefing in the Intermediate Court of Appeals, the case was transferred to the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi.The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi held that the case was justiciable, plaintiffs had standing based on their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, and procedural missteps did not bar their claims. The court articulated a standard for reviewing emergency proclamations: they must be rationally related to public health, safety, and welfare, and the executive actions must be reasonably necessary to address the emergency. Applying this, the court found the Sixth through Fifteenth proclamations valid, but held the first five exceeded the governor’s emergency powers. The court vacated the circuit court’s dismissal of the declaratory judgment claims. View "Nakoa v. Governor of the State of Hawai'i" on Justia Law

A labor union filed two lawsuits in 2014 against two related private developers responsible for constructing the Ritz-Carlton Residences towers in Waikīkī, as well as against the City and County of Honolulu. The union challenged the adequacy of the separate final environmental assessments (FEAs) for each tower under Hawaiʻi’s environmental laws, alleging that the developers improperly segmented the environmental review process. The City was included as a defendant because its Department of Planning and Permitting accepted the FEAs and issued findings of no significant impact for both towers. The lawsuits were consolidated.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted summary judgment in favor of the developers and the City, finding the FEAs sufficient and no improper segmentation. The developers also argued that the case was moot because the projects had been completed and sold. The union appealed, and the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi accepted transfer of the appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi held that the cases were not moot, as effective relief could still be granted, and that the public interest exception to mootness applied. The court found that there had been improper segmentation of the environmental review under the double independent utility test. The court remanded the case to the circuit court to determine whether the FEAs were sufficient as a combined review and, if not, whether a new environmental assessment or impact statement was required. In the present opinion, the Supreme Court awarded the union $112,721.10 in attorneys’ fees and costs against the private developers only, under the private attorney general doctrine, but denied fees against the City. The court found the union was a prevailing party and that the litigation vindicated important public policy. View "Unite Here! Local 5 v. Pacrep 2 LLC" on Justia Law

A trustee of a revocable living trust petitioned for instructions regarding whether it could distribute principal, not just income, from a subtrust to the settlor’s only surviving son, David. The trust’s contingent remainder beneficiaries, the Cooks, who are the settlor’s nieces and nephews, contested the petition, arguing that the trust did not permit principal distributions and that the trustee’s proposed modification was improper. The Cooks also sought attorneys’ fees from the trust. The trustee and David supported allowing principal distributions, while the Cooks opposed them.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit (probate court) initially granted the trustee’s petition, allowing principal distributions and ordering attorneys’ fees for all parties to be paid from the trust. The Cooks appealed. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed most of the probate court’s decision but reversed the award of attorneys’ fees to the Cooks. On further review, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i vacated the probate court’s order due to the lack of required findings and failure to enter an order under Hawai‘i Probate Rules (HPR) Rule 20(a), remanding for further proceedings. On remand, the probate court again denied the Cooks’ request for attorneys’ fees, finding their interest too contingent and their participation not beneficial to all beneficiaries. The ICA affirmed the denial of attorneys’ fees but again remanded the merits for lack of an HPR Rule 20(a) order.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i held that a probate court may award attorneys’ fees to trust litigants if their participation assists the court in resolving the dispute, but a decision on the merits is necessary before determining if such an award is proper. Because the ICA vacated the decision on the merits, affirming the denial of attorneys’ fees was premature. The court vacated the ICA’s judgment as to attorneys’ fees and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Elaine Emma Short Revocable Living Trust Agreement" on Justia Law

A company had been diverting large amounts of water from streams in East Maui for over twenty years under a series of annually renewed, so-called “temporary” permits issued by the state’s Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR). Each year, the company applied to renew these permits, which allowed it to use state land and divert millions of gallons of water daily. In 2020, before BLNR voted to renew the permits for 2021, an environmental group timely requested a contested case hearing, arguing that new evidence and changed circumstances warranted further scrutiny. BLNR denied this request and proceeded to renew the permits, adding some new conditions.The environmental group appealed to the Environmental Court of the First Circuit, challenging both the denial of a contested case hearing and the permit renewals. The Environmental Court found that the group had a constitutionally protected right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by state law, and that due process required a contested case hearing before the permits were renewed. The court vacated the permits but stayed its order to avoid disruption, temporarily modifying the permits to reduce the allowable water diversion. The court also awarded attorney fees and costs to the group.On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held that the group’s protected interest was defined by some, but not all, relevant environmental laws, and that due process did not require a contested case hearing in this instance. The ICA further found that the Environmental Court lacked jurisdiction over the permit renewals and erred in modifying the permits and awarding attorney fees.The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi reversed the ICA in relevant part. It held that the group’s constitutional right was defined by all cited environmental laws, including those governing coastal zone management. The court concluded that due process required a contested case hearing before the permits were renewed, and that the Environmental Court had jurisdiction to review both the denial of the hearing and the permit renewals. The Supreme Court also affirmed the Environmental Court’s authority to temporarily modify the permits and to award attorney fees and costs to the environmental group. View "Sierra Club v. Board of Land and Natural Resources" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two companies, one a contractor and the other a developer, over a construction project in Maui. The disagreement was submitted to binding arbitration, resulting in an award in favor of the developer. The developer sought to confirm the award in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, but the contractor challenged the award, alleging the arbitrator was evidently partial due to undisclosed relationships. The circuit court initially confirmed the award, but on appeal, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the partiality claim. After the hearing, the circuit court found evident partiality, denied confirmation, vacated the award, and ordered a rehearing before a new arbitrator.Following this, the contractor moved for taxation of costs incurred on appeal, which the circuit court granted. The developer sought to appeal the costs order, but the circuit court denied an interlocutory appeal. A new arbitration was held, again resulting in an award for the developer, which was confirmed in a new special proceeding with a final judgment entered. The developer then appealed the earlier costs order from the first special proceeding.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) dismissed the appeal as untimely, reasoning that the circuit court’s order vacating the first arbitration award and ordering a rehearing was an appealable final order under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 658A-28(a)(3), making the subsequent costs order also immediately appealable.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that an order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing is not an appealable order under HRS § 658A-28(a). The court clarified that such orders lack finality, regardless of whether the rehearing is full or partial, and reaffirmed the majority rule previously adopted in State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) v. County of Kauai. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s dismissal and remanded the case for entry of a final judgment, so the merits of the appeal could be addressed. View "Nordic PCL Construction, Inc. v. LPIHGC, LLC" on Justia Law

In 1919, a company filed an application in the Hawaiʻi Land Court to register fee simple title to several parcels of land in Lāhainā, Maui, asserting ownership by deed or adverse possession. The land included three main lots, with Lot 3 later subdivided; the dispute here centers on Lot 3A. The last known owner of Lot 3A died in 1877, leaving numerous heirs. Over the next century, the case was marked by long periods of inactivity, incomplete service on heirs, and defaults entered against many descendants. Some descendants appeared at various times to contest the company’s claims. In 2009, a successor company was substituted as applicant. In 2019 and 2020, the Land Court awarded the successor company title to Lots 1 and 2 based on paper title, and a 78.704% interest in Lot 3A based on adverse possession, with the remaining interest allocated to appearing heirs.The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the Land Court’s decisions. It held that the descendants who appeared lacked standing to defend the interests of their defaulted cotenants against the adverse possession claim and did not address other alleged errors.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi reviewed the case. It held that cotenants have standing to defend the interests of all cotenants against a claim of adverse possession. The court further held that the adverse possession claim as to Lot 3A should have been dismissed for laches, given the unreasonable 100-year delay and resulting prejudice to the heirs, including the loss of witnesses and evidence. The court vacated the lower courts’ decisions regarding Lot 3A, affirmed the award of Lots 1 and 2, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the application as to Lot 3A. View "In re Application of Pioneer Mill Company, Limited." on Justia Law

A property owner purchased a 17.547-acre parcel in North Kohala, Hawai‘i Island, in 2018. According to the official 1974 State Land Use District Boundaries map, about 4.794 acres of the property are within the conservation district, and the remainder is in the agricultural district. The owner contended that the conservation district boundary was incorrectly drawn, following the location of an old road rather than a newer road built in 1961. If the boundary had followed the newer road, 1.813 acres currently classified as conservation would have been agricultural. The owner petitioned the Land Use Commission (LUC) for a declaratory order to interpret the boundary under Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) § 15-15-22, arguing that the map contained a mistake and that the boundary should be corrected.The LUC held a public hearing, where the property owner presented evidence and testimony. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development opposed the petition, stating there was insufficient reason to believe the official boundary was incorrect. The County of Hawai‘i took no position. The LUC unanimously denied the petition, finding that the evidence was not “conclusive” or “compelling” enough to show a mapping error or that the boundary was intended to follow the newer road. The LUC concluded that the map was properly drawn and that the boundary interpretation provided by staff was correct.The property owner appealed to the Circuit Court for the Third Circuit, and the appeal was transferred to the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i. The Supreme Court held that, absent rulemaking to the contrary, the proper burden of proof for factual findings in such proceedings is the preponderance of the evidence standard. Because the LUC applied a heightened burden of proof, the Supreme Court vacated the LUC’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the preponderance of the evidence standard. View "Honoipu Hideaway, LLC v. State" on Justia Law

A man was charged with invasion of privacy in the first degree after he placed his iPhone on the outside ledge of a bathroom window to record a 15-year-old girl showering inside a house. The indictment alleged that he intentionally or knowingly installed or used a device in a “private place” without the consent of the person entitled to privacy, in violation of Hawai‘i law. Before trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the charge was insufficient because it did not include the statutory definition of “private place,” which he claimed was ambiguous. The circuit court denied the motion, and a jury found him guilty. He was sentenced to probation and appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA).On appeal, the defendant argued that the indictment was deficient for failing to specify what constituted the “private place.” The ICA, in a plurality summary disposition order, agreed that the charge was deficient and ordered the conviction vacated and the indictment dismissed without prejudice. The ICA did not address the defendant’s other points of error. Judges on the ICA differed in their reasoning, with one judge finding the evidence insufficient to support conviction and another finding the indictment provided adequate notice.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case on certiorari. The court held that “private place” is an attendant circumstance element of the offense, but the statutory definition does not create an additional element requiring inclusion in the indictment. The term “private place” is not generic and is readily understood by persons of common understanding. The court further found that, based on information available to the defendant before his motion to dismiss, he had actual notice of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment and remanded the case for consideration of the remaining appellate issues. View "State v. Kaakimaka" on Justia Law

A state agency issued a new revocable permit to a company for seed research operations on state-owned conservation land. The agency declared that an environmental assessment (EA) was not required, reasoning that the land’s use was not changing and that there would be minimal or no significant environmental impact. In making this determination, the agency relied on a 1982 finding of no significant impact (FONSI) that had been issued for sugar cane cultivation, not for seed research involving restricted use pesticides and genetically modified organisms. The agency did not analyze the potential environmental impacts of the new seed research activities.A group of plaintiffs challenged the agency’s exemption declaration in the Environmental Court of the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the agency failed to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts and did not follow proper procedures under the Hawai‘i Environmental Policy Act (HEPA). The environmental court granted summary judgment in favor of the agency and the company, upholding the exemption. On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) found that there were genuine issues of material fact and gaps in the agency’s record, and remanded the case to the environmental court for further proceedings to reassess the exemption.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that whether an agency has followed proper procedures or considered appropriate factors in declaring an EA exemption are questions of law reviewed de novo. The court concluded that the agency did not follow proper procedures or consider appropriate factors in its exemption declaration, as its record was insufficient and failed to address the environmental impacts of seed research operations. The court vacated the ICA’s judgment and the environmental court’s orders, and remanded the case with instructions that the agency must prepare an EA regarding the possible environmental impacts of the seed research use. View "Ke Kauhulu O Mn v. Board of Land and Natural Resources" on Justia Law