0750244
Va. Ct. App.
Mar 10, 2026
Read the full case

Background

  • Dodd hired Blue Haven to build a pool for her riverfront home after Blue Haven’s representatives assured her the high water table would not be a problem. 1
  • The contract called for a 40-by-20-foot pool for $143,298, to begin within 20 working days of permit approval and finish by August 4, 2022. 2
  • After groundwater stopped excavation and Blue Haven proposed a costly change order, Dodd agreed only after being told she would lose her prior payments if she quit. 3
  • Blue Haven later missed the completion deadline, left the pool cracked and unfinished, and the county planner indicated the pool violated a five-foot setback requirement. 4
  • Dodd sued for breach of contract and VCPA violations, seeking damages, treble damages, fees, and costs. 5
  • The jury awarded Dodd $147,984.10 in actual damages and another $147,984.10 after finding a willful VCPA violation, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly. 6

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Ad damnum clause supported treble damages 7 Dodd’s complaint gave notice of actual and treble damages. Blue Haven said the pleadings did not specify a recoverable amount. The ad damnum was sufficient; the award fit within it. 8
Waiver of evidentiary objections 9 Dodd said Blue Haven failed to object timely. Blue Haven said the challenged misrepresentations were outside the pleadings. The challenge was waived because Blue Haven objected only in a motion to strike. 10
Jury instructions on VCPA damages 11 The instructions correctly allowed actual and willful-treble damages. Blue Haven claimed there was no separate VCPA damages instruction. The instructions were adequate and not erroneous. 12
Sufficiency of evidence for VCPA causation 13 Dodd relied on Blue Haven’s misrepresentations when hiring it. Blue Haven argued there was no evidence its statements caused the damages. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. 14
Need for expert standard-of-care evidence 15 No expert was needed because this was not a negligence case. Blue Haven said Dodd had to prove deviation from the standard of care. No expert testimony was required. 16

Key Cases Cited

  • Lee v. Spoden, 290 Va. 235 (Va. 2015) (a plaintiff cannot recover more than demanded in the complaint 17)
  • West v. Anderson, 186 Va. 554 (Va. 1947) (a plaintiff may not recover more damages than claimed 18)
  • Hook v. Turnbull, 10 Va. (6 Call) 85 (Va. 1806) (historical rule limiting recovery to the amount demanded 19)
  • Stephens v. White, 2 Va. 203 (Va. 1796) (plaintiff must claim damages to recover them 20)
  • Va. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Northam, 74 Va. App. 1 (Va. Ct. App. 2021) (ad damnum sufficiency is reviewed de novo 21)
  • Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc., 273 Va. 564 (Va. 2007) (pleading sufficiency presents a pure question of law 22)
  • Spanos v. Taylor, 76 Va. App. 810 (Va. Ct. App. 2023) (Rule 5A:18 exceptions are not raised sua sponte when not invoked 23)
  • Richardson v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 436 (Va. Ct. App. 2017) (Rule 5A:18 requires a contemporaneous objection stated with reasonable certainty 24)
  • Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 351 (Va. Ct. App. 2011) (an objection must be specific and timely 25)
  • Shelton v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 121 (Va. 2007) (specific objections give the court a chance to fix the problem 26)
  • Bitar v. Rahman, 272 Va. 130 (Va. 2006) (an objection to evidence made only after the opponent rests is too late 27)
  • Kondaurov v. Kerdasha, 270 Va. 356 (Va. 2005) (late evidentiary objections are untimely 28)
  • Fahringer v. Commonwealth, 70 Va. App. 208 (Va. Ct. App. 2019) (jury instructions must clearly state the law and cover raised issues 29)
  • Darnell v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 485 (Va. Ct. App. 1988) (jury instructions are reviewed for completeness as to the issues raised by the evidence 30)
  • Holmes v. Commonwealth, 76 Va. App. 34 (Va. Ct. App. 2022) (giving or denying instructions is reviewed for abuse of discretion 31)
  • Conley v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 658 (Va. Ct. App. 2022) (instruction rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion 32)
  • Watson v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 197 (Va. 2019) (whether an instruction accurately states the law is reviewed de novo 33)
  • Payne v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 855 (Va. 2016) (instruction accuracy is a legal question reviewed de novo 34)
  • Sunrise Continuing Care, LLC v. Wright, 277 Va. 148 (Va. 2009) (appellate sufficiency review views evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner 35)
  • Price v. Peek, 72 Va. App. 640 (Va. Ct. App. 2020) (facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party on appeal 36)
  • Bartley v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 740 (Va. Ct. App. 2017) (unsupported appellate arguments are waived under Rule 5A:20(e) 37)
  • Jones v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 730 (Va. Ct. App. 2008) (appellant must provide principles of law, argument, and authority 38)
Read the full case