180 So. 3d 518
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Carroll Insulation contracted Biomax to install spray foam insulation on a restaurant project after plans initially called for fiberglass.
- Biomax installed spray foam without a city-approved ignition barrier; initial product was Gaco Green without DC-315 ignition barrier.
- Chief Nuckolls later found the insulation deficient for fire-code requirements and ordered a reattempt with an ignition barrier using Bayseal, which was not the originally agreed product.
- Biomax and Taylor attempted a fix, but negotiations and applications led to further disputes and Biomax employees eventually abandoned the project, forcing Carroll to hire Garland Insulating to complete the ignition barrier.
- Carroll sued Biomax and Taylor for breach of contract and LUTPA; Biomax and Taylor counterclaimed, seeking LUTPA relief and fees.
- Trial court found breach of contract, rejected LUTPA, awarded damages and later amended to retract attorney-fee awards; on appeal, judgment for Carroll was affirmed with costs split evenly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LUTPA claims were properly dismissed | Carroll asserts LUTPA applicable due to deceptive conduct | Biomax/Taylor contend LUTPA not applicable; only contract issue | LUTPA claims were not applicable; affirmed dismissal of LUTPA claims |
| Whether the dispute is governed by breach of contract under Article 2769 | Carroll argues Biomax/Taylor breaches contract by faulty workmanship | Biomax/Taylor argue no breach or proper completion | Breach of contract under Article 2769 proved; Biomax/Taylor breached by defective workmanship and nonperformance |
| Attorney fees awarded and subsequently retracted | Carroll sought attorney fees under contract/ statute | Fees not authorized by contract or statute; new trial appropriate | Attorney fees not authorized; new trial proper and retraction upheld |
| Damages measure for remedying defects | Carroll seeks costs to correct defects | Defects were not fully attributable to Biomax and some costs improper | Damages for remedying defects upheld; some claimed costs denied as not directly attributable to breach |
Key Cases Cited
- Quality Envtl. Processes, Inc. v. IP Petroleum Co., 144 So.3d 1011 (La. 2014) (LUTPA requires proof of fraud or unfair/ deceptive acts; broad but narrow in scope)
- Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., 35 So.3d 1053 (La. 2010) (LUTPA elements: ascertainable loss and unfair acts; not for mere contract breach)
- Rivet v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 800 So.2d 777 (La. 2001) (New-trial standards; miscarriage of justice considerations)
- Storey v. Weaver, 139 So.3d 1079 (La.App.2d Cir. 2014) (Damages standard for breach of contract; remedy reduction or correction of defects)
- Hardy v. Easterling, 113 So.3d 1178 (La.App.2d Cir. 2013) (LUTPA conduct must be egregious; not for simple breach)
- Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (Appellate review of factual findings; must be reasonable, not reweighed)