Van Halen v. Berkeley Hall Sch. Found., Inc.

KELLY VAN HALEN etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BERKELEY HALL SCHOOL FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B252059

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

December 17, 2014

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC490347)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steven J. Kleifield, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Mastroianni Law Firm and A. Douglas Mastroianni for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Marjorie Ehrich Lewis, Daniel L. Weiss and Bradley J. Hamburger for Defendants and Respondents.

____________________

INTRODUCTION

Parents enrolled their daughter in a private school for preschool. Two years later, while still attending the school, the child developed a severe allergy to nuts that can cause a serious and potentially lethal reaction. The school promised to create an educational environment that would not expose the child to nuts or nut products and to train its teachers how to administer appropriate aid if the child suffered an allergic reaction. The parents claim that the school had no intention of honoring its promises and in fact did not. Concerned about their child's safety, the parents, when they learned the truth, withdrew their daughter from the school and sued for return of their tuition, damages, and emotional distress. The trial court dismissed most of the parents' complaint on the pleadings. We reverse most of the trial court's rulings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The First Amended Complaint

We assume these allegations are true:¹

Stella Rogers, the daughter of Kelly Van Halen and Baron Rogers, is "a minor school-age child with a severe nut allergy" who can "suffer anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock if exposed to nuts." Her parents "carry a portable dose of adrenaline (epinephrine) which can be injected in the event of an allergic reaction. This portable dose of epinephrine — commonly known by the trademarks 'EpiPen' or 'Twinject'— is now a standard feature in American schools as the incidence of severe nut allergies rises."

Van Halen and Rogers enrolled Stella in the Berkeley Hall School, a private school in Los Angeles operated by defendant Berkeley Hall Foundation, Inc. Defendant Natalie Miller was "a top administrator at the school" and defendant Winnie Needham was an employee of the school.

Van Halen and Rogers contacted Miller "to learn about procedures in place to protect children with severe nut allergies." After Miller initially refused to meet with them, they met with Stella's teacher and the director of the preschool, where they learned that school employees "would never administer a dose of adrenaline to Stella," even if it were "necessary to save her life in response to a severe allergic reaction," and that the school would not ask students to refrain from bringing nut products to school. The teachers and staff made comments to the effect "Stella's allergy had no physical cause and was merely 'in her head' and she would grow out of it."

Van Halen and Rogers eventually met with Miller and Craig Barrows, the headmaster of the school, who informed them that "Berkeley Hall had adopted policies to ensure the safety of students with severe nut allergies."² The school subsequently sent out two letters to parents asking them not to send nuts and nut products to school. In reliance on the "repeated assurances that the school had banned nut products," Van Halen and Rogers enrolled Stella for the following academic year, "paid tuition of approximately $13,000 under a program that allowed for a full tuition refund if the student withdrew from the school for any reason," and did not "take steps to enroll Stella in another school."

Van Halen and Rogers subsequently "discovered that Berkeley Hall is an institution founded and controlled by Christian Scientists who are opposed on religious grounds to medical intervention to treat illness and advocate instead a spiritual or prayer-based 'faith healing,'" which the school "fails to disclose to parents of prospectivestudents . . . ." Thus, according to Van Halen and Rogers, "children attending the school, who might suffer life threatening injuries while under the school's supervision, are actually under the direct care of Christian Scientists who are likely, based on their religious beliefs, to forego medical intervention to aid an injured or sick child." Berkeley Hall's "failure to acknowledge childhood nut allergies and train its teachers and staff to respond to them, puts the school far outside the acceptable norm and standard of care long ago adopted by responsible and caring educational institutions."

With respect to Stella's situation, Berkeley Hall "refused to enforce its own ban on nut products, refused to train its staff in the use of the 'Epi-Pen,' (after agreeing to do so) and even refused to hire a nurse to care for students in the event of a medical emergency." Despite the school's "repeated assurances that a ban on nut products was being enforced, the school and its teachers and staff refused to do anything to prevent students with nut allergies from being exposed to nut products on campus. This reflected the religious belief of the teachers and staff at Berkeley Hall that Stella's allergies, and the allergies of other students, were not actually caused by nuts and had no actual physical cause—but were instead ailments to be cured with 'faith healing' and prayer." Thus, the school "had no intention of enforcing the nut ban expressly relied on by the plaintiffs in re-enrolling Stella at Berkeley Hall." Moreover, after assuring Van Halen and Rogers that Berkeley Hall staff "would be shown how to use a portable epinephrine injection device," the school informed them "that it could do nothing to intervene medically to help Stella except to call 911 and request paramedic assistance." According to Van Halen and Rogers, "[t]his was consistent with the staff's Christian Science beliefs which [Berkeley Hall] attempts to conceal from the public since deciding to expand its enrollment and revenue base among non-Christian Scientist families who do not reject modern medical science."

Van Halen and Rogers "suffered severe emotional distress worrying about Stella's health [upon] realizing that [Berkeley Hall] and its teachers and staff lied to [them] about their intentions to avoid exposing Stella to nuts, and realizing that the purported nut ban was not in place . . . ." They also suffered severe emotional distress when they learnedthat Berkeley Hall "would do little or nothing to protect Stella in the event of a medical emergency and Berkeley Hall's own teachers and staff would ignore the purported ban and would themselves repeatedly expose Stella to nut products after promising not to do so."

"Fearing for Stella's safety" and feeling "betrayed" by the school, and because Berkeley Hall "breached repeated promises that it would enforce its nut ban," Van Halen and Rogers "withdrew Stella from the school and were entitled to a full refund of their tuition payment." Berkeley Hall, after acknowledging that Van Halen and Rogers had a "right to a return of the tuition payment," refused to give them a refund unless they "signed a release of all claims and a confidentiality and non-disparagement agreement." In addition, because Van Halen and Rogers had to withdraw Stella from Berkeley Hall "after the start of the school year, they were unable to place their child in another school and educated her through the use of private tutors for a year at a significant cost exceeding $25,000."

In their first cause of action for breach of contract Van Halen and Rogers alleged that Berkeley Hall breached a written agreement "by failing to create a nut-free environment, repeatedly exposing Stella to nuts despite the purported ban, failing to instruct its staff in the use of the Epi-Pen and refusing to return [their] tuition payment." In their second cause of action for fraud they alleged that Berkeley Hall misrepresented that "it would institute a nut-free environment" at the school and would train "its staff in the use of the Epi-Pen." They also alleged that Berkeley Hall "failed to disclose the fact that its staff adhered to Christian Science doctrine which, at best, discouraged the staff from seeking medical intervention for injured or ill students and encouraged a disbelief in the physical causes of allergies . . . ." Van Halen and Rogers also asserted causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and unfair business practices.

B. The Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint

Berkeley Hall demurred to the first amended complaint,³ arguing that the first cause of action for breach of contract was uncertain and "so imprecise and confusing that Berkeley Hall cannot ascertain the contract that it purportedly breached." Berkeley Hall also argued that Van Halen and Rogers had not pleaded the second cause of action for fraud with sufficient specificity, nor had they adequately alleged that Berkeley Hall employees had made knowing and intentional false statements.

Berkeley Hall demurred to the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the grounds that Van Halen and Rogers had not pleaded outrageous conduct, intent, or severe emotional distress. Berkeley Hall argued that the negligent misrepresentation cause of action did not state a claim because the alleged statements that the school would institute a nut-free environment and would instruct staff how to use the Epi-Pen were ...