Cencor, Inc. v. Tolman

Cencor, Inc. v. Tolman

Opinion

  [*397]  JUSTICE KIRSHBAUM delivered the Opinion of the Court.

In Tolman v. CenCor Career Colleges, Inc., 851 P.2d 203 (Colo. App. 1992), the court of appeals held, inter alia, that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment for the petitioner, CenCor Career Colleges, Inc. (CenCor), on a breach of contract claim alleging failure to provide promised educational experience. Having granted certiorari to review that portion of the court of appeals' judgment, we affirm.

CenCor is a Delaware corporation transacting business in Colorado as Colorado College of Medical and Dental Careers. CenCor is a vocational school offering adult education courses designed to train students for technical jobs as medical and dental assistants.

Respondents, Arla G. Tolman, Tracie Allen, Jeanette Berry, Carol Bowser, Karen Castro, Laura Cowan, Cheryl [**2]  Garrison, Simin Hakimi, Francis Hiler, Suzanne Hill, Carl McGirl, Shelley Montoya, Stacey Muniz, Trace Nigh, Lisa Norton, Donna Pacheco, Louise Ragolia, Tanya Szalwinski, and Sylvia Westbrook, are former students of CenCor. The respondents and nineteen other ¹ [**3]  former CenCor students filed a civil action against CenCor alleging claims of negligent failure to inform students of the education to be provided; negligence of a specialist; negligence  [*398]  per se based on provisions of section 18-5-301(e), 8B C.R.S. (1986) (prohibiting false and misleading advertising statements); negligence per se based on provisions of sections 12-59-101 to -127, 5 C.R.S. (1985 & 1988 Supp.) (regulating private schools); intentional infliction of emotional distress; misrepresentation; concealment; and four contract claims (breach of contract, breach of express warranties, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel). ² The respondents sought compensatory and exemplary damages.

 CenCor answered and, after conducting extensive discovery, filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. Based on the pleadings, an affidavit of CenCor's director, the respondents' answers to interrogatories, and portions of depositions of the respondents, the trial court granted CenCor's motion. The trial court concluded that the negligence claims were in essence claims of educational malpractice, a theory of recovery not recognized in this jurisdiction. The trial court alternatively concluded that even if it were to recognize educational malpractice claims, the undisputed facts failed to establish such claims. The trial court also entered summary judgment for CenCor on the contract claims and the claims based on misrepresentation and concealment.  [**4]  The trial court concluded that the respondents failed to submit any factual support for their claims that CenCor breached contractual obligations to them.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.