Emerald Point, LLC v. Hawkins
294 Va. 544
| Va. | 2017Background
- Tenants sued Breeden and Emerald Point, LLC for injuries from carbon monoxide exposure from a gas furnace.
- CO detector alarm led to inspections; early inspectors and a Breeden maintenance worker treated issues as battery or minor, not a furnace defect.
- Initial CO reading of 37 ppm prompted gas company inspection; furnace gas supply was shut off and red-tagged; possible cracked heat exchanger suspected.
- Subsequent repairs included unlicensed, then licensed personnel; attic flue connections later found to channel CO into attic and into tenants' unit.
- Furnace replacement occurred; attic inspection revealed misconnected flue from an adjacent unit; CO levels returned to acceptable after repairs.
- Verdicts awarded damages to tenants; landlord sought to limit punitive damages; court later remanded for a new trial due to multiple evidentiary errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of undisclosed expert opinions | Lieberman opinions not disclosed per Rule 4:1(b)(4)(A)(i). | Disclosures were sufficient; opinions disclosed through deposition/materials. | Reversible error; new trial required. |
| Spoliation instruction should not have been given | Destruction of furnace evidence supports inference against landlord. | No bad faith; instruction appropriate under circumstances. | Instruction should be barred; remand without spoliation inference. |
| Admission of Alan Moore testimony | Testimony relevant to maintenance history and landlord negligence. | Testimony collateral and prejudicial; should be limited. | Exclude Moore testimony on remand. |
| Severance of Hawkins' claim | Consolidation prejudicial due to disparate injury severities. | Joinder appropriate; no abuse of discretion. | No abuse; severance denial affirmed. |
| Late amendment of ad damnum after evidence | Amendment appropriate for justice; remittal potential. | Late amendment prejudicial and improper after close of evidence. | Remand permits reconsideration; amendment may be reconsidered on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 274 Va. 581 (2007) (requires disclosure of the substance of expert opinions)
- Mikhaylov v. Sales, 291 Va. 349 (2016) (abuse of discretion for undisclosed expert testimony)
- Allied Concrete Co. v. Lester, 285 Va. 295 (2013) (spoliation sanctions and standards)
- Gentry v. Toyota Motor Corp., 252 Va. 30 (1996) (spoliation and adverse sanctions under certain conditions)
- Hyundai Motor Co. v. Duncan, 289 Va. 147 (2015) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Whitley v. Booker Brick Co., 113 Va. 434 (1912) (discretion to amend pleadings before verdict)
- Rodriguez v. Leesburg Bus. Park, LLC, 287 Va. 187 (2014) (remand resets issues anew; liberal amendment considerations)
- Nassif v. Board of Supervisors, 231 Va. 472 (1986) (new trial on remand; slate wiped clean)
- PTS Corp. v. Buckman, 263 Va. 613 (2002) (standards for reviewing damages and liability on remand)
- Wilson v. Whittaker, 207 Va. 1032 (1967) (general appellate standards on trial court rulings)