Bradley Woodcraft, Inc. v. Bodden
251 N.C. App. 27
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2013 Christine Bodden (aka Dryfus) hired Bradley Woodcraft, Inc. to do custom archways, trim and later kitchen cabinetry; disputes arose over workmanship.
- Bodden paid $26,000 in two final payments; she believed work remained unfinished and disputed the charges with American Express, which reversed them.
- Bradley sued Bodden in Wake County Superior Court for the reversed $26,000; Bodden counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference claims, and unfair/deceptive trade practices.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Bradley on the interference claims but denied it on fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and UDTP. At trial, the court granted a directed verdict for Bradley on fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and UDTP based on the economic loss rule.
- The jury found mutual breach: awarded Bradley $26,000 and Bodden $19,400, yielding a net judgment of $6,600 against Bodden. The trial court also awarded costs to Bradley; Bodden appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly directed a verdict dismissing Bodden’s fraud claim under the economic loss rule | Kaleel/Ports Authority bar tort claims arising from contractual disputes; economic loss rule precludes tort recovery where contract governs | Fraud is distinct from negligence; economic loss rule does not bar fraud claims brought alongside contract claims (Jones) | Reversed: economic loss rule does not bar fraud here; directed verdict on fraud was error and required new trial on all issues |
| Whether the economic loss rule bars other tort claims (negligent misrepresentation, UDTP) where contract exists | Contract remedies control; tort claims arising from performance failures are barred | Some torts (fraud) remain viable; negligent claims are generally barred by Ports Authority line | Court held fraud not barred; because fraud was factually interwoven, entire case remanded for new trial; court did not resolve other torts separately on appeal |
| Whether expert Shane Haddock was properly qualified to testify about cabinetry | Haddock lacked formal credentials or licensure; his testimony should be excluded | Haddock had 17 years’ cabinetry experience and practical qualifications; trial court has broad discretion to admit experts | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in qualifying Haddock as an expert; his qualifications went to weight, not admissibility |
| Whether costs awarded to Bradley and denied to Bodden were proper given judgment | Costs appropriate for prevailing party | Costs improper given errors requiring new trial | Reversed award of costs and remanded (judgment and costs order reversed due to need for new trial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Maxwell v. Michael P. Doyle, Inc., 164 N.C. App. 319 (court of appeals standard for directed verdict review)
- Merrick v. Peterson, 143 N.C. App. 656 (directed verdict sufficiency principles)
- N.C. State Ports Authority v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co., 294 N.C. 73 (recognition of economic loss rule barring negligence claims)
- Kaleel Builders, Inc. v. Ashby, 161 N.C. App. 34 (application of economic loss rule to negligence in construction-contract context)
- Jones v. Harrelson & Smith Contr’rs, LLC, 194 N.C. App. 203 (fraud claims may be asserted alongside breach of contract)
- State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880 (expert qualification can rest on practical experience)
- Kenney v. Medlin Const. & Realty Co., 68 N.C. App. 339 (construction-expert qualification based on extensive practical experience)