Jennie Brooks v. City of Huntington
234 W. Va. 607
| W. Va. | 2014Background
- City of Huntington built the Krouts Creek Stormwater project with a trash rack that could collect debris; the City failed to adequately maintain it, contributing to flooding in Spring Valley.
- Flooding occurred repeatedly, with the May 2011 flood central to petitioners’ claims that negligent maintenance caused damages to their homes.
- Petitioners presented expert testimony that their homes lost 30–75% of market value and that a new 100-year flood elevation necessitated two-foot elevation of homes.
- Jury awarded damages for cost to elevate homes and diminution in value, among other items.
- Circuit Court granted remittitur reducing recovery to the lesser of repair cost or diminution in value, and petitioners appealed.
- Court reverses remittitur, reinstates cost-of-repair damages, and vacates/remands to address potential residual diminution in value after repairs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measure of damages for reparable residential real property | Brooks argues cost of repair should be recoverable even if it exceeds pre-damage value | Huntington argues Jarrett limits to the lesser of repair cost or diminution in value | Cost of repair may be recovered; Jarrett is not limited to the lesser amount |
| Adoption of Restatement § 929 “reason personal” exception | Petitioners seek restoration costs when personal to owner | Court should not adopt Restatement’s exception | Restatement § 929 not adopted; limitations remain to prevent windfall |
| Residual diminution in value after repair in residential property | Recovery for remaining diminution in value should be allowed | Residual diminution is duplicative or too speculative | Residual diminution may be recoverable if not duplicative; remand to determine amount post-repair |
| Remittitur and final judgment posture | Remittitur misapplied; full cost of repair should stand | Remittitur appropriate under Jarrett as applied | Remittitur reversed; cost of repair reinstated; remand for residual diminution determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarrett v. E.L. Harper & Son, Inc., 160 W.Va. 399 (W. Va. 1977) (measure of damages for reparable real property; cost of repair plus value loss when repair possible; otherwise loss in value)
- Slovek v. Board of County Comm’rs of the Cnty. of Weld, 723 P.2d 1309 (Colo. 1986) (public policy against arbitrary caps on restoration damages)
- Sunburst Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. Texaco, Inc., 165 P.3d 1079 (Mont. 2007) (restoration damages and public policy concerns; cost of repair vs. market value)
- Ellis v. King, 184 W.Va. 227, 400 S.E.2d 235 (W. Va. 1990) (residual diminution in value exception for certain property damage)
- Hartzell v. Justus Co., Inc., 693 F.2d 770 (8th Cir. 1982) (recognition of dual damages when full restoration not possible)