Hartec Corp. v. GSE Associates, Inc.
91 So. 3d 375
| La. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hartec contracted with Waterworks to construct the Terrebonne Parish Schriever Water Plant Expansion for $4,950,000, with GSE providing architectural/engineering plans.
- Hartec terminated the contract for cause on June 26, 2002 after suspensions exceeding 90 days on key areas, prompting litigation with Waterworks, GSE, and GSE’s insurer Continental Casualty.
- Bifurcated trial under La. R.S. 13:5105 separated claims against private vs public entities, with a jury deciding Hartec’s claims against GSE and Waterworks’ claims against Hartec/GSE, and a judge deciding the reconventional demand.
- The jury found Hartec liable against GSE for $909,222.49, while the judge found Waterworks against Hartec for $1,555,472.69, creating inconsistent verdicts in a bifurcated trial.
- The trial court’s combined judgment reversed, amended, and included an award to Waterworks; appellate review focused on the judge’s verdict and the extent of Hartec’s damages.
- On appeal, the court reversed the award of liquidated damages against Hartec and awarded Hartec $45,939.49 for additional compensation, affirming the rest of the Waterworks judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for inconsistent bifurcated verdicts | Hartec argues judge’s verdict should harmonize with jury findings. | Waterworks argues no need to harmonize; focus on each verdict separately. | Judgment reviewed de novo for the judge’s findings; no harmonization required between inconsistent verdicts. |
| Contract balance and liquidated damages | Hartec not entitled to liquidated damages and contract balance due under delays caused by others. | Waterworks contends damages and balance are due per contract terms and delays were not excusable. | Trial court erred in liquidated damages; reversed to remove $479,500; contract balance otherwise affirmed. |
| entitlement to extra compensation for specific extra work | Hartec deserves payment for RCP elevational clash, raw water pipe rework, and roadway repair. | GSE/Waterworks argued costs were due to Hartec’s own fault or plan issues. | Award $45,939.49 for specified items; other claimed items not awarded. |
| Delay damages | Waterworks engineer delays and floods caused Hartec’s additional delays warrant time extensions and damages. | Delays not properly proven or excused beyond extensions already granted. | No additional delay damages beyond already awarded extensions; court's ruling affirmed on this point. |
| Adequacy of GSE’s plans and overall project costs | Plans inadequately protected Hartec from concrete leaks and pipe issues; costs were reasonably incurred. | Plans adequate; damages largely due to Hartec’s construction practices. | Trial court findings on plan adequacy and project completion costs largely affirmed; manifest error not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (great deference to trial-finder when credibility issues exist)
- Thornton v. Moran, 348 So.2d 79 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1977) (more reasonable standard harmonizing verdicts)
- Cornish v. State Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 647 So.2d 1170 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1994) (allocations of fault and harmonization guidance)
- Eppinette v. City of Monroe, 698 So.2d 658 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1997) (manifest error then more reasonable standard with mixed damages)
- Deville v. Town of Bunkie, 364 So.2d 1378 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1978) (adopted the more reasonable standard for some time)
- Hebert v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 934 So.2d 912 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2006) (de novo standard adopted for bifurcated trial review)
- McDaniel v. Carencro Lions Club, 934 So.2d 945 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2006) (four-part harmonization approach critique of mixed standards)
- Aubert v. Charity Hospital of Louisiana, 363 So.2d 1223 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1978) (illustrative of appellate review in complex mixed-verdict cases)
- American Casualty Co. v. Ill. Central Gulf R.R., 601 So.2d 712 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (adoption of more reasonable standard in fault allocations)
- Stobart v. State, DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (manifest error standard for appellate review of factual findings)