## Facts

- Harodite Industries, Inc. (Harodite) is a Massachusetts manufacturer with a facility in Taunton, Massachusetts.
- Warren Electric Corporation (Warren) is a Rhode Island company that designed and manufactured an oil pre-heater (and related components, including a gasket) in Rhode Island for use by Harodite.
- In May 2002, a gasket on the oil pre-heater failed at Harodite’s Massachusetts facility, causing an oil spill and resulting in significant property and environmental damage.
- Harodite alleged damages consisting of property damage, cleanup costs, and lost profits; it did not seek personal-injury damages.
- On April 29, 2005, Harodite filed suit in the Rhode Island Superior Court (Providence County) against Warren (and other defendants) based on the 2002 incident.
- After prolonged pretrial proceedings and discovery disputes, in April 2009 Harodite moved to amend its complaint to add new factual allegations and a new claim, asserting that the basis for the amendment came from information it had only recently obtained through discovery.
- Warren opposed the amendment, arguing the new allegations and claim were time-barred under Massachusetts’s shorter limitations periods (three or four years).
- Harodite argued Rhode Island’s 10-year statute of limitations for property-damage claims applied.
- The Superior Court agreed with Harodite on the choice-of-law/limitations issue (Rhode Island’s 10-year period), but denied leave to amend for reasons tied to delay and prejudice.
- Harodite sought certiorari review in the Rhode Island Supreme Court, challenging the denial of leave to amend; the Supreme Court also directed briefing on whether Rhode Island or Massachusetts limitations law applied.

## Issues

1. Did the Superior Court abuse its discretion under Rhode Island Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) by denying Harodite leave to file a late amended complaint?
2. For the claims Harodite sought to add by amendment, did Rhode Island’s 10-year limitations period for property-damage claims apply, or did Massachusetts’s shorter limitations periods apply?

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s order denying Harodite’s motion to amend its complaint, holding the hearing justice did not abuse his discretion.
- The Supreme Court also agreed with the Superior Court’s choice-of-law ruling that Rhode Island’s 10-year statute of limitations for property-damage claims applied (rather than Massachusetts’s shorter periods).
- Because the amendment was properly denied, Harodite could not add the proposed new allegations and claim, even though the court agreed Rhode Island’s longer limitations period would govern them.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rhode Island Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend should be freely given, but the decision remains within the trial justice’s discretion; a court may deny amendment when there is undue delay and unfair prejudice to the opposing party.
- In reviewing denial of a motion to amend, the Supreme Court applies an abuse-of-discretion standard and will affirm where the record supports the trial justice’s findings about delay, discovery history, and prejudice.
- For tort choice-of-law questions in Rhode Island, courts use an interest-weighing approach guided by Restatement (Second) conflict factors, including the place of injury, the place of injury-causing conduct, the parties’ domiciles/places of business, and where the parties’ relationship is centered.
- Policy factors considered in the choice-of-law analysis include predictability for the parties, interstate order, ease of judicial administration, the forum state’s interest (especially when the forum is Rhode Island and a Rhode Island citizen is a party), and an evaluation of which jurisdiction’s limitations rule better reflects a balanced approach.
- A Rhode Island court may apply Rhode Island’s 10-year limitations period for property-based claims where key contacts and policy factors favor Rhode Island, even if the physical damage occurred in another state.

## Conclusion

The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the Superior Court acted within its discretion in denying Harodite’s late motion to amend after extended discovery and resulting prejudice to Warren, and it also agreed that Rhode Island’s 10-year statute of limitations for property-damage claims—rather than Massachusetts’s shorter limitations periods—was the proper limitations law for the proposed amended claims.


Harodite Industries, Inc. v. Warren Electric Corp., 24 A.3d 514 (2011)