Hone v. Advanced Shoring & Underpinning, Inc.
291 P.3d 832
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Hone built a La Verkin, Utah home in June 2004; within two months the home began subsiding into the soil.
- Advanced Shoring installed 14 helical piers and 45 grouted columns in early 2006 to shore underpin the house; later determined this was inadequate.
- Hones paid an additional $8,743 for extra underpinning work (one more pier and thirteen more columns) after being told it was needed to guarantee results.
- Further underpinning repairs occurred in December 2006 and June 2007 without success; Hones eventually sued for breach of contract and breach of warranty.
- While suit was pending, Hones vacated the home due to unsafe conditions and later lost the home to foreclosure after bankruptcy, mortgage difficulties, and income disruption.
- Trial court denied two summary judgment motions by Advanced Shoring; bench trial occurred; after trial, judgment was entered against Advanced Shoring for $289,065.54; Advanced Shoring appeals the denials of summary judgment and the directed verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hone's oral warranty claim is enforceable. | Hone argues Garside’s statements created an express warranty. | Advanced Shoring contends the terms were too uncertain for a contract and the alleged warranty is not enforceable. | Denial of summary judgment on warranty is not reviewable; factual disputes at trial determine enforceability. |
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove breach and causation under the warranty. | Lay witnesses could show continued subsidence and damages; no expert needed. | Expert testimony required to prove breach and its cause under a geotechnical warranty. | Review of denial of summary judgment is not available; whether expert was needed depends on the warranty’s scope; directed verdict upheld given theory supported at trial. |
| Whether damages from foreclosure preclude recovery for warranty breach. | Loss of the home was caused by damages from Advanced Shoring’s work, not foreclosure independently. | Foreclosure severed standing; damages must be shown notwithstanding ownership status. | Denial of summary judgment on damages not reviewable; trial evidence supported damages; affirmed denial of summary judgment on damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Normandeau v. Hanson Equip., Inc., 2009 UT 44 (Utah Sup. Ct. 2009) (denial of summary judgment review depends on legal vs. factual ruling; posttrial changes limit review)
- Harris v. Albrecht, 2004 UT 13 (Utah Sup. Ct. 2004) (contract formation requires meeting of the minds; terms must be certain to form a contract)
- Groen v. Tri‑O‑Inc., 667 P.2d 598 (Utah 1983) (express warranty can be formed by reasonable evidence; extrinsic evidence may determine scope)
- SME Indus. v. Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Assocs., Inc., 2001 UT 54 (Utah Sup. Ct. 2001) (express breach of warranty is a form of strict liability; causation of damages must be shown)
- Florez v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 2010 UT App 254, 240 P.3d 107 (Utah App. Ct. 2010) (directed verdict review considers all inferences in the nonmoving party’s favor; expert necessity depends on warranty scope)