316 Ga. App. 630
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Rollins, Inc. sued Carrier for breach of contract and related claims over a $2+ million HVAC installation at Rollins’s headquarters; Carrier counterclaimed for unpaid invoices.
- Juries awarded Rollins $350,000 and Carrier $88,000; cases consolidated on appeal.
- HVAC contracts included a March 11, 2005 nine-phase plan and a March 9, 2005 letter agreement; Rollins arbitration claim Feb 17, 2009 and complaint filed Mar 30, 2009.
- System never functioned properly; Rollins paid over $2 million and Carrier stopped work in Dec 2008 after unresolved issues.
- Rollins argues timely suit under the contract’s one-year limitation; Carrier argues accrual at substantial completion—March 2007; evidence shows incomplete system and Carrier continued work through Dec 2008, including executive area problems.
- The appellate court affirmed in Case No. A12A0481 and reversed in Case No. A12A0482; judgment on the verdict was upheld, and prejudgment interest issues were reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rollins’ contract claim was timely under the one-year limit | Rollins: not time-barred because Carrier continued work through Dec 2008 | Carrier: accrual at substantial completion (Mar 2007) | Rollins timely; court denied directed verdict on this ground. |
| Whether the court should have instructed on substantial completion as accrual | Rollins: term not in contract; substantial completion is statutory | Carrier: substantial completion should govern | No reversible error; contract lacked substantial completion term. |
| Whether damages for breach of written warranty were duplicative of contract damages | Rollins:Warranty breach distinct; defective parts matter | Carrier: exclusive remedy language governs | Verdict form preserved validity; no reversible error on this point. |
| Whether the court should have given Kent v. Hunt-type instruction | Rollins: contract compliance excuses liability if fully complied | Carrier: proper to give such a charge | Charge not required; jury instruction already covered substantial compliance; harmless. |
| Whether sanctions for Darnis deposition violation were proper | Rollins: sanctions appropriate for noncompliance | Carrier: sanctions improper without protective-order context | Discretionary sanctions within OCGA § 9-11-37; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gold Kist Peanuts v. Alberson, 178 Ga. App. 253 (Ga. App. 1986) (ambiguity in rate of interest awards; contract terms control)
- Spears v. Allied Engineering Assocs., 186 Ga. App. 878 (Ga. App. 1988) (ambiguous rate of prejudgment interest; need specificity)
- Joel v. Duet Holdings, 181 Ga. App. 705 (Ga. App. 1987) (sanctions under OCGA § 9-11-37 (b) when prior orders exist)
- Wills v. McAuley, 166 Ga. App. 4 (Ga. App. 1983) (discovery sanctions principles)
- Mull v. Mickey’s Lumber &c., 218 Ga. App. 343 (Ga. App. 1995) (contract terms not revised by judicial interpretation)