BROOKE BUTTREY v. HOLLOWAY’S, INC., ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. December 13, 2012)
A homeowner sued builders for the defective construction of a house, alleging breach of contract, intentional misrepresentations, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
The trial court dismissed the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims, but found the builders liable for intentional misrepresentations and breach of the contract by failing to build the house in a workmanlike manner. The trial court awarded the homeowner the full amount she paid to have the house built as well as her attorney’s fees.
The builders appealed, claiming the evidence did not support the amount of damages awarded, the evidence did not support the court’s finding of intentional misrepresentation, and the homeowner was not entitled to attorney’s fees.
We modify the damages awarded to the homeowner to conform to the evidence presented. We reverse the court’s award of attorney’s fees, and we reverse the court’s finding that the builders intentionally misrepresented material facts.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/buttreyb_121312.pdf
Showing posts with label Construction Defects. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Construction Defects. Show all posts
December 15, 2012
December 12, 2012
Lab to Pursue Fix in Botched Security System (John Serverence, Los Alamos Monitor)
Los Alamos National Security, LLC, is bringing in outside counsel to help it deal with the botched construction of a security upgrade at the lab. Originally, the system was supposed to cost $213 million, but cost overruns have jacked the project up to $254 million, according to a memo written by Lab Director Charlie McMillan, to employees. The National Nuclear Security Administration is holding LANS, LLC accountable for the projected $41 million in cost overruns.
Read the full story at:
http://www.lamonitor.com/content/lab-pursue-fix-botched-security-system
Read the full story at:
http://www.lamonitor.com/content/lab-pursue-fix-botched-security-system
February 22, 2012
Court reviews a case involving construction materials that were allegedly defective
BERNIE CHEATHAM d/b/a UNIVERSAL BUILDERS, ET AL. v. THE FEDERAL MATERIALS COMPANY, LLC, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 22, 2012)
Builder was hired to construct a commercial building, and it purchased the concrete for the building’s concrete slab from Supplier. The concrete slab developed major cracks, which led to this lawsuit between Builder and Supplier. After a two-day bench trial, the trial court found that Supplier had delivered defective concrete, and it entered judgment in favor of Builder for $60,000. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/cheathamb_022212.pdf
Builder was hired to construct a commercial building, and it purchased the concrete for the building’s concrete slab from Supplier. The concrete slab developed major cracks, which led to this lawsuit between Builder and Supplier. After a two-day bench trial, the trial court found that Supplier had delivered defective concrete, and it entered judgment in favor of Builder for $60,000. We affirm.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/cheathamb_022212.pdf
January 30, 2012
Court reviews a breach of contract and Consumer Protection Act claim against a home builder
ROBERT F. MEREDITH ET AL. v. KENNETH L. WELLER ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. January 25, 2012)]
The plaintiff, Robert F. Meredith ("the Owner"), appeals a judgment rendered against him in favor of his home builder, Kenneth L. Weller ("the Builder"), on the Builder's counterclaim for breach of contract and for attorney's fees incurred in defending the Owner's claims for, among other things, defective construction, misrepresentation, breach of contract, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. sections 47-18-101 et seq. (2001)("the TCPA"). The Builder asks us to award him his attorney's fees incurred in defending the Owner's appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects. We also award the Builder his reasonable attorney's fees incurred on appeal and remand to the trial court for a hearing to determine those fees.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/meredithr_012512.pdf
The plaintiff, Robert F. Meredith ("the Owner"), appeals a judgment rendered against him in favor of his home builder, Kenneth L. Weller ("the Builder"), on the Builder's counterclaim for breach of contract and for attorney's fees incurred in defending the Owner's claims for, among other things, defective construction, misrepresentation, breach of contract, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. sections 47-18-101 et seq. (2001)("the TCPA"). The Builder asks us to award him his attorney's fees incurred in defending the Owner's appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects. We also award the Builder his reasonable attorney's fees incurred on appeal and remand to the trial court for a hearing to determine those fees.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/meredithr_012512.pdf
July 14, 2011
Earl K. Messer: Insurance coverage for construction defects
Contractor liability insurance coverage in construction defect cases is a matter that is hotly litigated. On the one hand, coverage often exists when a defect causes harm to a third party’s property. On the other hand, if the only harm is to the insured contractor’s defective work itself, there is usually no coverage. In between lies controversy. A key area of dispute is where defective work on one part of a construction project causes harm to another part of the same project, a common occurrence. Courts are split on whether coverage exists under such circumstances, although the trend appears to be in favor of coverage.
Read the full story here: http://www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com/httpdocs/news-Construction_Defect_Insurance_Coverage.php
Read the full story here: http://www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com/httpdocs/news-Construction_Defect_Insurance_Coverage.php
February 28, 2011
Court Reviews the Award of Damages in a Case about the Construction of a Defective Dentist Office
CHARLES PESCE v. EAST TENNESSEE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 28, 2011)
Charles Pesce ("the Owner") is a practicing dentist. He contracted with East Tennessee Construction Services, Inc. ("the Builder") to build him a new office for his practice on a lot owned by him. The Builder constructed the building, but with numerous undisputed defects.
The Owner filed this action which culminated in a bench trial that lasted several days. Based upon diminution in value, the trial court awarded the Owner $282,000 in damages. The trial court expressly found that the cost to repair the structure was an unacceptable measure of damages because it "is disproportionate . . . to the difference in the value of the structure actually constructed and the one contracted for." The court awarded the Owner discretionary costs of over $10,000.
The Owner appeals challenging the measure of damages as well as the amount awarded under the diminution in value measure. The Owner also challenges the trial court's failure to order the Builder to reimburse him for fees charged by one of the Owner's experts in connection with his discovery deposition taken by the Builder. The Builder challenges the award of discretionary costs and argues that the damages awarded are excessive. We reverse in part and affirm the remaining judgment as modified.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/pescec_022811.pdf
SWINEY concurring
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/pescec_CON_022811.pdf
Charles Pesce ("the Owner") is a practicing dentist. He contracted with East Tennessee Construction Services, Inc. ("the Builder") to build him a new office for his practice on a lot owned by him. The Builder constructed the building, but with numerous undisputed defects.
The Owner filed this action which culminated in a bench trial that lasted several days. Based upon diminution in value, the trial court awarded the Owner $282,000 in damages. The trial court expressly found that the cost to repair the structure was an unacceptable measure of damages because it "is disproportionate . . . to the difference in the value of the structure actually constructed and the one contracted for." The court awarded the Owner discretionary costs of over $10,000.
The Owner appeals challenging the measure of damages as well as the amount awarded under the diminution in value measure. The Owner also challenges the trial court's failure to order the Builder to reimburse him for fees charged by one of the Owner's experts in connection with his discovery deposition taken by the Builder. The Builder challenges the award of discretionary costs and argues that the damages awarded are excessive. We reverse in part and affirm the remaining judgment as modified.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/pescec_022811.pdf
SWINEY concurring
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/pescec_CON_022811.pdf
November 18, 2010
Court Reviews Damages Owed in a Defective Driveway Case
EARL FAULKNER, ET AL. v. TOM EMMETT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (Tenn. Ct. App November 18, 2010)
Earl and Faye Faulkner ("Plaintiffs") hired Tom Emmett Construction Company ("Defendant") to construct a new driveway at their home in Knox County. Plaintiffs refused to pay $8,000 of the total $18,000 contract price because they were dissatisfied with the workmanship of the driveway.
Plaintiffs sued Defendants seeking as damages what it would cost to remove and replace the allegedly defective driveway. Defendant asserted that the driveway was properly constructed and filed a counterclaim for the remaining $8,000 balance owed on the oral contract.
Following a bench trial, the Trial Court concluded that any problems with the driveway were not sufficient to require that it be removed and replaced. Because there was a problem with how the concrete on one portion of the driveway had been poured, the Trial Court required Plaintiffs to pay Defendant only $5,000 of the remaining $8,000 owed on the contract. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm as modified.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/faulknere_111810.pdf
Earl and Faye Faulkner ("Plaintiffs") hired Tom Emmett Construction Company ("Defendant") to construct a new driveway at their home in Knox County. Plaintiffs refused to pay $8,000 of the total $18,000 contract price because they were dissatisfied with the workmanship of the driveway.
Plaintiffs sued Defendants seeking as damages what it would cost to remove and replace the allegedly defective driveway. Defendant asserted that the driveway was properly constructed and filed a counterclaim for the remaining $8,000 balance owed on the oral contract.
Following a bench trial, the Trial Court concluded that any problems with the driveway were not sufficient to require that it be removed and replaced. Because there was a problem with how the concrete on one portion of the driveway had been poured, the Trial Court required Plaintiffs to pay Defendant only $5,000 of the remaining $8,000 owed on the contract. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm as modified.
Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/faulknere_111810.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)