SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY
Washington, D.C. Case Summary
Galvin v. Ruppert Nurseries, Inc.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
341 A.3d 1165
Decided: August 28, 2025
Homeowner could not establish her claims against a tree nursery for alleged faulty installation of six trees on her property.
Background
The litigant homeowner contracted with a tree nursery company in 2020 to install six trees on her property in Washington, D.C. Plaintiff told the nursery that she wanted the trees to restore the “screening” provided by evergreen trees blocking the view between her property and a neighbor’s property. The contract provided that the installation must “be in accordance with the Landscape Specification Guidelines [(LSGs)] for the Baltimore Washington Metropolitan Area.” The contract specified that there was no warranty on plant material supplied and installed by the nursery as part of the contract. The contract also stated that the “plants [were] being planted into locations that are considered low light conditions” and that “[l]ower branches and shaded sides of trees will thin out overtime in these situations.” At the top of the contract, the “Re:” line identified the contract as “Galvin Evergreen Screening No Warranty.”
The homeowner became dissatisfied with the trees after two of them died. She then refused to pay the remaining balance on the contract. The nursery sued the homeowner for breach of contract and the homeowner asserted Counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and violations of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”).
The Trial Court concluded that there was a valid contract between the parties. The Court found that the nursery company complied with all the contract requirements by delivering, installing and monitoring the six trees, and found that the homeowner was required to pay the remaining value of the contract. The Trial Court acknowledged the homeowner’s dissatisfaction with the trees based on her understanding of evergreen screening, but it declined to read the contract as requiring the nursery to ensure evergreen screening because the contract “did not provide a metric for defining an end result or anything outside of the delivery and installation of six trees.” The Trial Court also found that the homeowner failed to establish her Counterclaims for breach of contract and breach of the CPPA. The Court did, however, find that the nursery breached the implied warranty of merchantability regarding the trees that died several months after planting. An appeal followed.
Holding
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the Trial Court did not err in denying the homeowner’s breach of contract claim against the nursery, nor did it err in concluding that the homeowner breached the contract by withholding the remaining payment. The Trial Court sufficiently considered that the nursery was required to comply with the LSGs, and the Court found no clear error in the Trial Court’s finding that the nursery did so. Further, the Court held that the nursery did not repudiate the contract, despite the homeowner’s claim that she reasonably sought adequate assurances from the nursery that the trees would provide “evergreen screening,” because the contract “did not provide a metric for defining an end result or anything outside of the delivery and installation of six trees.”
The Court next addressed the homeowner’s claim that the nursery breached the CPPA because the trees did not provide evergreen screening (despite the nursery indicating that they would) and because the nursery misrepresented or omitted the risks involved with planting the trees in the summer. The Court of Appeals held that the homeowner’s first argument was not supported by the evidence since the contract did not require evergreen screening as described above. As for the second argument, the Court held that the nursery adequately disclosed the risk of planting trees in the summer, relying on an email the nursery sent to the homeowner stating that the risks associated with summer planting could be mitigated by proper care and maintenance before and after planting. The nursery thus did not violate the CPPA.
Finally, the homeowner argued that the Trial Court erred in finding that the nursery did not breach the implied warranty of merchantability for all six trees, and that all the trees should have been fit for the purpose of providing evergreen screening. The Court of Appeals held, however, that the ordinary purpose of the trees under the contract was to live, not to provide evergreen screening, and that the implied warranty was breached only as to the trees that had died.
Questions about this case can be directed to Sam Hemmingstad at 202.978.2049 or shemmingstad@tthlaw.com.