G&G Mech. Constructors, Inc. v. Jeff City Indus., Inc.
549 S.W.3d 492
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- JCI was general contractor on a municipal water/sewer project and subcontracted boring work to G&G; G&G sued for unpaid work and obtained a jury verdict for $445,408.94 against JCI and its surety, Liberty Mutual.
- After verdict, the trial court awarded prejudgment interest at 9% under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 408.020; JCI and Liberty appealed, arguing the parties had agreed no interest would be charged.
- Contract Attachment A originally contained an interest provision (18% or highest lawful rate) that JCI crossed out and initialed and handwrote a separate "5% Retainage" notation; G&G’s representative also initialed and dated the returned contract.
- Parties extensively briefed and argued the prejudgment‑interest issue to the trial court before judgment; appellants did not file a Rule 78.07(a) motion for new trial after judgment.
- The court treated the stricken interest clause as extrinsic (not part of the agreement), found the surviving contract silent on interest, and held statutory interest (9%) applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (G&G) | Defendant's Argument (JCI/Liberty) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of error: Was the prejudgment‑interest issue preserved for appeal despite no new‑trial motion? | Appellant raised issue pre‑judgment and after verdict; G&G argued issue was preserved by trial‑court briefing and rulings. | Appellants argued lack of post‑trial new‑trial motion forfeited appellate review. | Preserved: Extensive pre‑ and post‑verdict briefing and trial‑court rulings sufficed to preserve issue for appeal. |
| Contract interpretation / prejudgment interest: Does striking the interest clause show an agreement to pay no interest, or does the contract remain silent so §408.020 supplies 9%? | Striking removed the provision leaving contract silent; statutory 9% interest applies. | Striking (and initials) evidenced mutual agreement that no interest (or alternative) would be paid. | Stricken language is extrinsic and not part of the contract; contract is unambiguous and silent on interest; statutory 9% prejudgment interest applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Donham, 900 S.W.2d 630 (Mo. banc 1995) (prejudgment‑interest issues raised and decided by trial court may be preserved for appeal despite absence of new‑trial motion)
- Whelan Sec. Co. v. Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835 (Mo. banc 2012) (contract interpretation: unambiguous contracts control; parol evidence only if ambiguity exists)
- Maddick v. DeShon, 296 S.W.3d 519 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (stricken language is extrinsic and generally may not be used to construe the agreement)
- Gateway Frontier Props. v. Selner, Glaser, Komen, Berger & Galganski, P.C., 974 S.W.2d 566 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (reaffirming that excised writing is not part of the contract for construction)
- Trinity Prods., Inc. v. Burgess Steel, L.L.C., 486 F.3d 325 (8th Cir. 2007) (examined crossed‑out interest clause and handwriting in context to infer parties’ agreement on interest in a different factual setting)