Belfor USA v. Rocky Mtn. Caulking (Colo. App. 2006)
Decided August 10, 2006, the Court of Appeals reverses the trial court's remititur, basically allowing the claimaint to seek lost profits at the last minute. Belfor had hired Rocky Mountain to install caulking and waterproof coatings on 161 exterior decks of an apartment complex for a lump sum of $184,831. Rocky Mountain partially completed the work, and Belfor paid Rocky Mountain only $65,380. The parties then went to court, both alleging that the other had breached the contract.
Rocky Mountain indicated throughout the preliminary stages of the lawsuit that it was seeking only $12,582.90 for unpaid work performed. Rocky Mountain’s mechanics’ lien was for $12,582.90. In the Trial Management Order, Rocky Mountain identified that it was seeking $12,582.90. And Rocky Mountain’s principal testified at trial that only four invoices totaling $12,582.90 remained unpaid. Thus, Belfor and the trial court apparently presumed that Rocky Mountain was only seeking $12,582.90.
At trial, Rocky Mountain put on evidence that it was not allowed to perform $106,868.10 in contract work. The trial court directed the jury to ignore this testimony, as it related to lost profits and Rocky Mountain had not made a claim for lost profits. Despite the trial court’s instruction to the jury, after trial, the jury awarded damages to Rocky Mountain for $106,868.10, the exact amount in contract value that Rocky Mountain’s principal testified his company was not allowed to perform.
The trial court then reduced the jury award to the $12,582.90 that Rocky Mountain had been claiming since the beginning of the lawsuit, on a motion for remititur. The trial court did this primarily because of Rocky Mountain’s continued representation throughout the various states of the case that is claim was for $12,582.90. But on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, and reinstated the jury award of $106,868.10, plus pre- and post- judgment interest. Despite the fact that the award was for the exact amount of the "stricken" claim, the Court of Appeals ruled that the evidence could have supported the amount awarded as part of the claimant's damages not related to lost profits. The Court of Appeals also suggested in its opinion that had the trial court chosen a different vehicle or rule, like Rule 37, by which to reduce the jury award, then it would not have been reversed.
Comments