293 So.3d 317
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- Adam and Shannon Lewis bought a newly constructed home in 2007 and performed repeated repairs to a parapet wall and roof-to-wall connection during their ownership.
- When listing the house (2011–2013), the Lewises submitted a partially completed statutory disclosure form leaving key questions about leaks, wall/window problems, and structural work blank and answered "No" to some related items despite repairs.
- The Lewises contracted to sell the house to Richard and Cheryl Rula in April 2013; the contract included an "as‑is" clause and the buyers obtained a home inspection that reported no defects.
- After closing (May 1, 2013) the Rulas discovered a structural/parapet defect and spent $75,000 to replace the parapet; they claimed an additional $160,000 in diminution of value.
- The Rulas sued for negligent and intentional misrepresentation; a jury found for the Rulas on negligent misrepresentation, awarded $235,000, and allocated 87% fault to the Lewises (net judgment $204,450). The trial court denied JNOV; the Lewises appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rula) | Defendant's Argument (Lewis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an "as‑is" clause relieves the seller of statutory disclosure duties and liability | The statutory disclosure duty applies regardless of an "as‑is" clause; sellers must disclose known defects | The "as‑is" clause bars post‑sale liability and therefore insulates sellers from disclosure claims | The Court affirmed that an "as‑is" clause does not relieve the seller of the affirmative statutory duty to disclose known defects; liability may follow for negligent failure to disclose |
| Whether evidence was legally sufficient to deny JNOV and support the jury verdict | Evidence of the Lewises' knowledge (repairs by contractor), omissions on the disclosure, expert testimony, and repair costs supported negligence and damages | Insufficient evidence and contractual "as‑is" protection warranted JNOV or reversal | The denial of JNOV was affirmed; viewing evidence favorably to the verdict, substantial evidence supported negligent misrepresentation and damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Stribling Inv. LLC v. Mike Rozier Constr. Co., 189 So. 3d 1216 (Miss. 2016) (holding sellers must satisfy statutory disclosure duty despite an "as‑is" clause)
- Stonecipher v. Kornhaus, 623 So. 2d 955 (Miss. 1993) (discussed seller knowledge and buyer awareness of defect at closing; factually distinguishable)
- Crase v. Hahn, 754 So. 2d 471 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (buyer proceeded fully informed; distinguishable)
- Williams v. Estate of Morrison ex rel. Morrison, 969 So. 2d 132 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (seller liable only for defects within seller's personal knowledge)
- Mine Safety Appliance Co. v. Holmes, 171 So. 3d 442 (Miss. 2015) (standard of review for JNOV: de novo; sufficiency measured by evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict)