Ground Control, LLC. v. Capsco Industries, Inc., 214 So. 3d 232

Background

Ground Control (sub-subcontractor) performed work on the Margaritaville Hotel project and sued its subcontractor Capsco, general contractor W.G. Yates (Yates), and owner Harrah’s for unpaid labor and materials after the subcontractor failed to pay.
Mississippi law (Miss. Code §31-3-15) made the subcontract void because neither Ground Control nor Capsco held required certificates of responsibility; the trial court originally granted summary judgment on that basis.
On interlocutory appeal (Ground Control I), the Mississippi Supreme Court held the contract was void but remanded allowing Ground Control to pursue unjust enrichment and quantum meruit (value of labor/materials) claims.
After remand Ground Control attempted to add broader contract and tort claims; the trial court limited trial to quantum meruit damages per the appellate mandate and excluded tort and other contract theories.
A jury awarded $862,228 and apportioned liability 95.75% to Capsco ($825,583.31), 4.25% to Yates ($36,644.69), and 0% to Harrah’s; post-trial motions produced protracted litigation.
On appeal the Court: affirmed restriction to quantum meruit; reversed and rendered judgment for Yates (no liability); found Capsco’s award against the overwhelming weight of evidence and ordered either a remittitur to $199,096 or a new trial on damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether recovery was properly limited to quantum meruit/unjust enrichment after subcontract was void	Ground Control argued it could pursue broader tort and contractual claims and sought expectation damages and quasi-estoppel	Defendants argued the appellate mandate limited recovery to unjust enrichment/quantum meruit only	Court held mandate constrained recovery to quantum meruit/unjust enrichment; trial court correctly limited claims
Whether Ground Control could recover quantum meruit from general contractor Yates	Ground Control argued Yates accepted benefits and negotiated change orders, so was liable under quantum meruit	Yates argued sub-subcontractor looked to Capsco for payment and Redd bars quantum meruit recovery by sub-subcontractor from general contractor when services arose from another contract	Court held Redd controls; Ground Control expected payment from Capsco, not Yates; reversed award against Yates and rendered judgment for Yates
Whether the jury’s damages award against Capsco was supported by evidence (expectation vs. restitution damages)	Ground Control contended its damages supported higher award and sought pre-judgment interest (characterizing damages as liquidated)	Capsco argued damages were limited to restitution (value of unpaid labor/materials) per mandate and that trial evidence did not support the $825,583.31 award	Court held the $825,583.31 verdict was against overwhelming weight of evidence; remitted damages to $199,096 or ordered new trial on damages if remittitur rejected
Whether plaintiff was entitled to pre-judgment or earlier post-judgment interest	Ground Control claimed liquidated damages basis (quasi-estoppel) entitled it to pre-judgment interest and that post-judgment interest should accrue from verdict date	Defendants argued damages were equitable/quantum meruit (unliquidated) and pre-judgment interest inappropriate; trial court discretion controls post-judgment start date	Court held pre-judgment interest not available for disputed quantum meruit claim; post-judgment interest start date (final judgment) was within trial court discretion

Key Cases Cited

Ground Control, LLC v. Capsco Indus., Inc., 120 So. 3d 365 (Miss. 2013) (interlocutory opinion limiting recovery to unjust enrichment and quantum meruit)
Redd v. L & A Contracting Co., 151 So. 2d 205 (Miss. 1963) (sub-subcontractor may not recover in quantum meruit from general contractor for work done under an express contract with another)
In re Estate of Gillies, 830 So. 2d 640 (Miss. 2002) (pre-judgment interest not appropriate where quantum meruit award and amount are disputed)
Davis v. Noblitt & Capers Elec. Co., 594 So. 2d 610 (Miss. 1992) (acceptance of judgment proceeds does not preclude appeal; funds held subject to appellate outcome)
Inv’rs Prop. Mgmt., Ltd. v. Watkins, Pitts, Hill & Assocs., 511 So. 2d 1379 (Miss. 1987) (acceptance of money under judgment does not waive right to appeal where appeal seeks modification)
Moeller v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins., 812 So. 2d 953 (Miss. 2002) (law-of-the-case doctrine requires lower court follow appellate mandate)