Carpenter, E. v. Master Remodelers
184 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- In July 2009 Master Remodelers contracted to build a two‑story addition, sidewalk, downspouts and drainage for the Carpenters for ≈ $173,000; work was finished December 2009.
- Within a year the Carpenters observed water in the basement but did not identify the cause; they later hired Nellis Contractors in 2012 to remediate pooling, a pitched sidewalk, rotten wood under slab, and downspout/drainage defects.
- Nellis removed and replaced the sidewalk, replaced downspouts, added a pad/drain for the A/C condenser, and provided photos and an invoice ($7,600) to the Carpenters in a November 25, 2012 letter.
- Master’s owner McQuaide visited the property in September 2012, saw some issues, but Master was not given a formal opportunity to inspect pre‑remediation; Master claimed prejudice and moved for dismissal on spoliation grounds.
- Non‑jury trial in Sept. 2016 found Master breached the contract (workmanlike performance) and awarded damages; trial court reduced award slightly post‑trial to $7,435; Master appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoliation / dismissal for destruction of evidence | Carpenters: remediation was reasonable to prevent further damage; no intent to hide evidence; they attempted contact with Master earlier. | Master: Carpenters and Nellis removed Master’s work and denied Master the chance to inspect; dismissal is appropriate because Master was prejudiced. | Court: Denied dismissal; no evidence of intentional destruction, Carpenters not in bad faith, Master had some photos and McQuaide visited; dismissal was an abuse to impose. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for breach (sidewalk, downspouts, A/C drainage) | Carpenters: Nellis testimony and facts show improper grading/downspouts and A/C left below grade caused water — Master failed to perform workmanlike construction. | Master: No expert link to Agreement, one‑year warranty bars recovery, concrete can settle for other reasons, Nellis didn’t see Master’s work until 2012. | Court: Evidence (Nellis testimony, timing, McQuaide’s admissions, contract scope) was sufficient to infer breach and causation; warranty did not preclude contract claim for lack of workmanlike performance. |
| Opportunity to cure / contractual warranty scope | Carpenters: they tried to contact Master earlier and reasonably sought remediation when Master was unresponsive; warranty did not extinguish other contract rights. | Master: Contract required one‑year cure period; Plaintiffs failed to notify within warranty and denied Master chance to cure. | Court: Trial court’s credibility findings supported that Carpenters had attempted contact and reasonably hired Nellis; warranty did not bar a breach claim for non‑workmanlike performance filed within limitations. |
| Weight of the evidence / credibility findings | Carpenters: testimony and contractor evidence support findings; removal of work was prudent. | Master: Verdict against weight; witnesses were inconsistent about contacts and causation; trial court should have found otherwise. | Court: Deferential review to factfinder; credibility and weight were for trial court — verdict did not shock the conscience and was upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mt. Olivet Tabernacle Church v. Edwin L. Wiegand Div., 781 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2001) (spoliation sanction standard and appellate review of sanction)
- PTSI, Inc. v. Haley, 71 A.3d 304 (Pa. Super. 2013) (articulating trial‑court spoliation‑sanction factors)
- Creazzo v. Medtronic, Inc., 903 A.2d 24 (Pa. Super. 2006) (spoliation factors: fault, prejudice, alternative sanctions)
- Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C. v. Law Firm of Malone Middleman, P.C., 137 A.3d 1247 (Pa. 2016) (elements of breach of contract)
- Stephan v. Waldron Electric Heating and Cooling LLC, 100 A.3d 660 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for non‑jury trial verdicts and credibility)
- Mort Co. v. Paul, 76 A.2d 445 (Pa. Super. 1950) (contractor performance in a workmanlike manner)
- Waugh v. Shunk, 20 Pa. 130 (Pa. 1852) (contractor’s obligation to exercise adequate skill and diligence)
- Jones v. Rivera, 866 A.2d 1148 (Pa. Super. 2005) (procedural note on appealability and judgment entry)