207 So. 3d 1131
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Georgia-Pacific contracted with Dresser-Rand in 2004 for a steam turbine generator and related services; contract governed by Georgia law and contained an exclusive warranty clause disclaiming other warranties.
- Georgia-Pacific sued in 2009 claiming the turbine (notably the trip and throttle valves) failed to meet performance specs and seeking damages, fees, and costs; during litigation it hired Alstom to replace those valves at a cost of $2,061,903.62.
- Dresser-Rand counterclaimed for unpaid contract sums and non-warranty work, but parties later stipulated Georgia-Pacific owed $239,230.50.
- At a 2015 jury trial, the jury returned a verdict awarding Georgia-Pacific $2,061,903.62; the trial court reduced that by the stipulated amount and awarded attorney fees, expert fees, and costs to Georgia-Pacific.
- On appeal Dresser-Rand challenged the sufficiency of the jury instructions and verdict form (among other issues); Georgia-Pacific sought increased fees on appeal.
- The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial because the closing jury instructions and verdict form omitted essential legal principles (burden of proof, elements of breach/causation, applicable Georgia contract/warranty law) and the record presented conflicting, credibility-dependent expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of jury instructions | Short instruction sufficed; evidence supports verdict | Instructions were incomplete; omitted burdens, elements, Georgia law, and key requested instructions | Reversible error: instructions omitted essential law; verdict vacated and case remanded for new trial |
| Adequacy of verdict form | Simple liability/amount questions were sufficient | Form failed to require findings on breach, causation, or other underlying issues | Verdict form inadequate and contributed to error; no weight given to jury verdict |
| Whether appellate review should be de novo or remand for new trial | Not addressed in depth by plaintiff; verdict supported by record | Record contains heavily conflicted, technical expert testimony requiring credibility determinations | Remanded for new trial because credibility issues make first-hand witness assessment necessary |
| Attorney fees & expert costs awarded by trial court | Fees and costs awarded per contract and trial court discretion | If verdict overturned, fee/cost awards tied to that verdict should fall | Moot after vacatur; fee/cost award vacated and not decided on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Abney v. Smith, 35 So.3d 279 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2010) (appellate review and remand standards where jury instructions omitted essential legal principles)
- McCrea v. Petroleum, Inc., 705 So.2d 787 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1997) (trial court not required to give party-submitted wording but must state correct law applicable to facts)
- Valure v. Valure, 696 So.2d 685 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1997) (failure to brief an assigned error on appeal may result in abandonment)