Jacob Hatch, an Individual, and Diamond Point Construction, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation
2015 WY 19
| Wyo. | 2015Background
- Walton and Duhn hired Hatch/ Diamond Point to build a custom Powder Horn home; no written contract; oral cost-plus terms alleged.
- Oral agreement reportedly set Hatch to bill costs plus 13%; Hatch claimed 10% markup on subcontractors; dispute over 'costs' term.
- Hatch used deceptive billing: his bookkeeper marked invoices up by 10% and provided fabricated substitutes with 10% added.
- Walton and Duhn stopped paying disputed amounts and eventually allowed Hatch to disengage; project unfinished.
- District court found an oral contract, overbilling by $62,378.67, and breach of an implied warranty; awarded damages and considered punitive/attorney-fee implications.
- On appeal, Hatch contests damages calculation and Walton/Duhn contest denial of attorney fees; court reviews under standards for damages and expert-proof requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages from Hatch's billing: proper calculation? | Walton/Duhn contend overbilling inflated damages and lack of payment reduces damages. | Hatch argues damages limited to contracted amount and that nonpayment offsets should be applied. | Damages calculation was clearly erroneous; remand to recalculate. |
| Implied warranty breach: sufficiency of evidence of workmanlike construction? | Walton/Duhn prove defects and costs due to substandard workmanship. | No expert proof tying alleged defects to Hatch's workmanship; plans/design not Hatch's fault. | Evidence insufficient; reverse and strike warranty award. |
| Attorney fees/punitive damages under American Rule? | Fraud justification could support punitive damages and attorney-fee recovery. | No contractual/statutory basis for attorney fees; punitive damages not warranted here. | District court did not abuse discretion; no punitive-damages or attorney-fees award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Meduna, 47 P.3d 206 (Wy. 2002) (punitive damages/attorney fees require contract/statute or punitive-damages theory)
- Shirley v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 958 P.2d 1040 (Wyo. 1998) (BMW Gore factors for punitive damages; outrageousness and reprehensibility matter)
- Rosty v. Skaj, 272 P.3d 947 (Wy. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for punitive damages findings)
- Govin v. Hunter, 374 P.2d 421 (Wy. 1962) (expert proof required to establish standard of care when essential)
- Garaman, Inc. v. Williams, 912 P.2d 1121 (Wy. 1996) (expert testimony needed to establish defect and standard of workmanship)
- Kemper Architects, P.C. v. McFall, 843 P.2d 1178 (Wy. 1992) (testimony needed to prove deviation from standard of workmanship)