Cresci Construction Services, Inc. v. Martin
64 A.3d 254
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant James H. Martin entered into a contract with Cresci Construction Services, Inc. on October 16, 2004 to build a home for $184,730.
- The contract included a liquidated damages clause only for cancellation before Cresci began work and did not fix values for mortgage, legal, inspection, or dual-home maintenance costs.
- In April 2006 Cresci sued Martin for $34,378.56 of the balance; Martin counterclaimed for breach of contract and related damages.
- A jury trial in April 2010 awarded Martin $66,000 in breach-of-contract damages to him, without subcategories or interrogatories.
- After trial, Martin sought prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees; Cresci sought post-trial relief and neither party appealed the verdict.
- The trial court denied post-trial motions; judgment was entered June 10, 2011, and Martin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prejudgment interest extent | Martin contends interest is a legal right where damages are liquidated or ascertainable. | Cresci argues the harm here is not a fixed or ascertainable sum from the contract, so interest is discretionary. | Prejudgment interest not awarded as of right; jury award not liquidated or ascertainable. |
| Attorney's fees entitlement | Martin argues trial court should award fees under contract or statute due to post-trial requests. | Cresci contends there is no statutory or contractual basis for awarding fees and the court did not abuse its discretion. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no award of attorney's fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Black Gold Coal Corp. v. Shawville Coal Co., 730 F.2d 941 (3d Cir. 1984) (establishes liquidated sums as right to prejudgment interest under PA law)
- Fernandez v. Levin, 519 Pa. 375 (Pa. 1988) (right to interest as damages; adoption of Restatement §354)
- TruServ Corp. v. Morgan’s Tool & Supply Co., 39 A.3d 253 (Pa. 2012) (distinguishes prejudgment vs contractual interest; right vs discretion)
- Bozzo, Frank B. Bozzo, Inc. v. Electric Weld Div. of Fort Pitt Div. of Spang Indus., Inc., 498 A.2d 895 (Pa. Super. 1985) (liquidated/ascertainable standard vs compensation for delay; remand for findings)
- Standard Pipeline Coating Co. v. Solomon & Teslovich, Inc., 496 A.2d 840 (Pa. Super. 1985) (consequential damages leave prejudgment interest to discretion)
- Daset Min. Corp. v. Indus. Fuels Corp., 473 A.2d 584 (Pa. Super. 1984) (Restatement §354 principles applied to damages)
- Kaiser v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 741 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion standard on prejudgment interest)