Davis, Bowen & Friedel, Inc. v. DiSabatino, N14C-05-021 AML

DBF (engineer/surveyor) contracted with DiSabatino for four real-estate development projects (Chickberry, Jestice Farm, Northeast, Elkton); each contract incorporated Schedule No. 43 (Net 30 payment term) and a fee schedule.
DBF sent periodic invoices; DiSabatino stopped timely paying multiple invoices. DBF sued for breach of contract on May 2, 2014.
Trial testimony (DBF VP Crouch and DiSabatino consultant Carrozza) established ongoing communications through 2011–2013, but disputes existed about whether and when work was authorized or stopped.
Key legal question: when did DBF’s breach-of-contract causes of action accrue (invoice nonpayment date vs. contract termination), given Delaware’s 3‑year statute of limitations for contract claims.
Court found DBF could ascertain damages when invoices became past due (Net 30), so claims are time‑barred for invoices overdue more than three years before May 2, 2014, but recoverable for invoices that became overdue on or after May 2, 2011.
Judgment awarded: Chickberry $2,479.14; Jestice Farm $55,275.81; Elkton $25,989.61; Northeast claims were conceded/barred. Prejudgment interest, post‑judgment interest, and contractual attorneys’ fees and costs were allowed for the successful portions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Accrual/statute of limitations — when does claim accrue?	Accrual waits until contract termination / full damages ascertainable (continuing contract doctrine).	Each unpaid invoice is a separate breach; statute runs from each invoice due date (Net 30).	Accrual occurred when invoices became past due and damages were ascertainable; claims for invoices overdue before May 2, 2011 are time‑barred.
Continuous vs. severable contract	Contracts are continuous; services overlap so damages only ascertainable at termination.	Contracts are severable: distinct tasks, phased performance, periodic billing.	Court noted evidence favored severability but did not need to decide; regardless, damages were ascertainable at invoice due date.
Recovery scope per project	Seek full unpaid balances across projects (including post‑2011 work).	Limit recovery to invoices due within 3 years pre‑suit; dispute authorization of some post‑2011 work.	Northeast claims barred entirely; Chickberry, Jestice Farm, Elkton recoverable only for invoices overdue on/after May 2, 2011 (specific amounts awarded).
Attorneys’ fees and costs	Contract contains fee‑shifting clause for collection; entitled to fees for successful claims.	Opposed to extent/amount; argues unsuccessful portions shouldn't yield fees.	Fee provision enforceable; DBF may petition for reasonable fees and costs limited to successful claim portions.

Worrel v. Farmers Bank, 430 A.2d 469 (Del. 1981) (breach accrues when contract is broken).
Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 484 F. Supp. 1375 (D. Del. 1980) (continuous‑contract/continuing breach doctrine discussion).
Fike v. Ruger, 754 A.2d 254 (Del. Ch. 1999) (plaintiff bears burden to prove tolling/continuing breach).
Dover Historical Society v. City of Dover Planning Commission, 902 A.2d 1084 (Del. 2006) (American Rule and exceptions for contractual fee‑shifting).
ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund, 91 A.3d 554 (Del. 2014) (enforcement of contractual fee‑shifting clauses).