Fulgham v. Fischer
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5865
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Eagle Equity owned commercial buildings damaged by hail and insured with Travelers; they engaged in appraisal under the insurance contract.
- Eagle hired Fulgham as its appraiser; Fulgham assembled an appraisal team including Fischer to perform work for the appraisal.
- The appraisers conducted separate investigations and presented to an umpire; after appraisal, Fulgham did not pay Fischer's team.
- Fischer and team sued Fulgham for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment; by trial date only Fischer and Fulgham remained.
- Trial court awarded Fischer $139,200 plus interest and fees; findings of fact and conclusions of law were amended; court allowed alternative theories (contract and quantum meruit).
- Fulgham appeals challenging sufficiency of evidence and argues against alternative contract/quantum meruit conclusions; court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a binding contract (written or oral) between Fischer and Fulgham? | Fischer asserts contract existed by conduct and agreements with Fulgham. | Fulgham argues no enforceable contract; quantum meruit should not be allowed if a contract exists. | The court affirmed alternative contract/quantum meruit theories; findings supported. |
| Is the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support quantum meruit against Fulgham? | Fischer provided valuable services expressly for Fulgham and accepted by Fulgham. | Fulgham contends services were for Eagle and not Fulgham; no contract-free basis for quantum meruit. | Evidence supports quantum meruit; Fischer recovered $139,200; services directed by Fulgham. |
| Are the trial court's alternative conclusions of law (contract and quantum meruit) properly stated and consistent? | The court may resolve on any theory, contract or quantum meruit, depending on the evidence. | Fulgham argues it was improper to render both contract and quantum meruit conclusions. | Correct to retain alternative theories; record supports quantum meruit recovery. |
| Was the damages amount properly supported and pled, and are prejudgment/postjudgment interest issues waived? | Damages at least $101,250 were pled; evidence supports $139,200. | Fulgham argues damages should be limited to pleaded amount; interest calculations contested. | Damage award sustained; pleadings permitted at least amount; interest issues waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (courts defer to fact-finder credibility within zone of reasonable disagreement)
- Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng'rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (more than a scintilla of evidence required for sufficiency)
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (standard for evidentiary sufficiency including scintilla)
- Vortt Exploration Co., Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. 1990) (quantum meruit elements and recovery guidance)
- Bashara v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp. Sys., 685 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. 1985) (quantum meruit standards and reliance on benefits conferred)
- Truly v. Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1988) (no recovery under quantum meruit where express contract exists)