ISLAND PROPERTIES ASSOCIATES v. THE REAVES FIRM, INC., d/b/aREAVES, SWEENEY, AND MARCUM, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 6, 2013)
This is a surveyor negligence case. Appellee developer filed suit against Appellant
surveyor, claiming two distinct acts of negligence on surveyor’s part.
The first claim of negligence involved an error allegedly made by surveyor in a 1993 survey. The second claim
of negligence involved Appellee’s claim that, upon discovering the 1993 survey error in a
subsequent survey that it performed in 2002, surveyor had a duty to inform Appellee of the
error.
We conclude that any negligence arising from the 1993 survey claim is barred by the
statute of repose, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-114(a). Despite Appellant’s numerous motions to exclude this cause of action as time barred, the trial court ultimately allowed the 1993 negligent survey claim to be tried to the jury. The jury was then instructed as to both claims of negligence and the jury returned a verdict, wherein it found Appellant surveyor to be forty percent at fault and awarded damages in favor of Appellee. Appellant surveyor appeals.
Because the jury was improperly instructed and was allowed to consider the time-barred claim of negligence, we conclude that the jury was mislead by the instructions. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment on the jury verdict and remand for a new trial. Vacated and remanded.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/islandproperties_030613.pdf
March 10, 2013
March 08, 2013
Court reviews two claims of surveyor negligence
ISLAND PROPERTIES ASSOCIATES v. THE REAVES FIRM, INC., d/b/a REAVES, SWEENEY, AND MARCUM, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. March 6, 2013)
This is a surveyor negligence case. Appellee developer filed suit against Appellant surveyor, claiming two distinct acts of negligence on surveyor’s part. The first claim of negligence involved an error allegedly made by surveyor in a 1993 survey. The second claim of negligence involved Appellee’s claim that, upon discovering the 1993 survey error in a subsequent survey that it performed in 2002, surveyor had a duty to inform Appellee of the error.
We conclude that any negligence arising from the 1993 survey claim is barred by the statute of repose, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-114(a). Despite Appellant’s numerous motions to exclude this cause of action as time barred, the trial court ultimately allowed the 1993 negligent survey claim to be tried to the jury. The jury was then instructed as to both claims of negligence and the jury returned a verdict, wherein it found Appellant surveyor to be forty percent at fault and awarded damages in favor of Appellee. Appellant surveyor appeals.
Because the jury was improperly instructed and was allowed to consider the time-barred claim of negligence, we conclude that the jury was mislead by the instructions. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment on the jury verdict and remand for a new trial. Vacated and remanded.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/islandproperties_030613.pdf
This is a surveyor negligence case. Appellee developer filed suit against Appellant surveyor, claiming two distinct acts of negligence on surveyor’s part. The first claim of negligence involved an error allegedly made by surveyor in a 1993 survey. The second claim of negligence involved Appellee’s claim that, upon discovering the 1993 survey error in a subsequent survey that it performed in 2002, surveyor had a duty to inform Appellee of the error.
We conclude that any negligence arising from the 1993 survey claim is barred by the statute of repose, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-114(a). Despite Appellant’s numerous motions to exclude this cause of action as time barred, the trial court ultimately allowed the 1993 negligent survey claim to be tried to the jury. The jury was then instructed as to both claims of negligence and the jury returned a verdict, wherein it found Appellant surveyor to be forty percent at fault and awarded damages in favor of Appellee. Appellant surveyor appeals.
Because the jury was improperly instructed and was allowed to consider the time-barred claim of negligence, we conclude that the jury was mislead by the instructions. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment on the jury verdict and remand for a new trial. Vacated and remanded.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/islandproperties_030613.pdf
March 01, 2013
Court reviews an agreement between contractors and subcontractors regarding the allocation of damages in a claim against the owner of a construction project
SULLIVAN ELECTRIC, INC. v. ROBINS & MORTON CORPORATION (Tenn. Ct. App. February 28, 2013)
A subcontractor on a large project in Texas sued the general contractor claiming the general contractor breached an agreement the parties made regarding claims both had against the owner of the Texas project. The parties agreed the subcontractor would be entitled to a pro rata share of the settlement or judgment amount if the subcontractor’s claims were not itemized.
The settlement agreement between the general contractor and the owner did not include an itemization of the subcontractor’s claims. The subcontractor had been given a prepayment of its claim against the owner in the amount of $300,000, and applying this to the subcontractor’s pro rata share, the general contractor determined the subcontractor was not entitled to anything more.
The trial court deducted the $300,000 from the subcontractor’s claim and awarded the subcontractor its pro rata share of the difference. Both the subcontractor and general contractor appealed, the subcontractor claiming it was not awarded enough and the general contractor claiming the subcontractor was awarded too much.
We reverse the trial court’s award and hold the $300,000 the subcontractor received as a prepayment was more than it was entitled to pursuant to the terms of the parties’ agreement. Accordingly, the contractor did not breach its agreement, and the subcontractor was not entitled to any damages.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/sullivan_022813.pdf
A subcontractor on a large project in Texas sued the general contractor claiming the general contractor breached an agreement the parties made regarding claims both had against the owner of the Texas project. The parties agreed the subcontractor would be entitled to a pro rata share of the settlement or judgment amount if the subcontractor’s claims were not itemized.
The settlement agreement between the general contractor and the owner did not include an itemization of the subcontractor’s claims. The subcontractor had been given a prepayment of its claim against the owner in the amount of $300,000, and applying this to the subcontractor’s pro rata share, the general contractor determined the subcontractor was not entitled to anything more.
The trial court deducted the $300,000 from the subcontractor’s claim and awarded the subcontractor its pro rata share of the difference. Both the subcontractor and general contractor appealed, the subcontractor claiming it was not awarded enough and the general contractor claiming the subcontractor was awarded too much.
We reverse the trial court’s award and hold the $300,000 the subcontractor received as a prepayment was more than it was entitled to pursuant to the terms of the parties’ agreement. Accordingly, the contractor did not breach its agreement, and the subcontractor was not entitled to any damages.
Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/sullivan_022813.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)