JRW Services Group v. Camp, G.
JRW Services Group v. Camp, G. No. 2987 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 6, 2017Background
- JRW contracted with IMS (general contractor) and Camp (IMS principal) to provide HVAC and plumbing under a written subcontract (Nov. 24, 2013) for $403,245; the subcontract required written change orders for extra work.
- JRW performed work and billed extras; Appellants stopped paying and owners paid some invoices; JRW claimed $63,778.90 unpaid.
- JRW sued for breach of contract and violation of CASPA; Appellants counterclaimed for overpayments and nonperformance.
- At trial, JRW asserted both breach of the written subcontract and that Appellants orally authorized extra work; Appellants argued only written-change-order claims were pleaded and tried.
- The jury found for JRW on breach and CASPA, awarded $55,812 to JRW, found Camp assumed individual liability (but assessed no damages against him), and rejected Appellants’ counterclaims.
- Appellants’ post-trial motions for JNOV or a new trial were denied; this appeal followed and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (JRW) | Defendant's Argument (IMS/Camp) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JNOV should be entered because JRW only pleaded breach of the written contract (no written change orders) | Complaint sufficiently alleged that Appellants requested and accepted extra work (oral modifications), and Appellants failed to specifically deny those averments | Claims for oral modification were not properly pleaded; trial should have been limited to written-contract breach requiring written change orders | Denied — pleadings and discovery reasonably put Appellants on notice of oral-authorizations; Appellants’ general denials and conduct amounted to admissions; evidence supported jury verdict |
| Whether a new trial was required because JRW allegedly added oral-contract/modification claims mid-trial causing unfair surprise | Discovery responses, emails, and admissions put Appellants on notice; Appellants had opportunity to depose known witnesses; no unfair surprise | Trial strategy and discovery focused on written change orders; Appellants were prejudiced and unprepared for oral-authorization theory | Denied — record shows no unfair surprise or prejudice; evidence and discovery addressed oral authorizations |
| Whether JNOV should be entered because evidence supported only $8,599 in extras (not the larger amount submitted to jury) | Testimony and documentary evidence supported larger extra-work amount and jury’s damage award | Only six items totaling $8,599 were testified to by JRW’s principal; the rest lacked evidentiary support | Denied — jury could credit JRW’s testimony and supporting invoices/emails; ample evidence supported $55,812 award |
| Whether Camp is entitled to JNOV individually because he was not a party to the written subcontract | Camp individually communicated approvals and requests for extras; evidence showed individual participation and assent | Camp cannot be individually liable because he was not a party to the written subcontract and gave no personal guarantee | Denied — evidence supported that Camp acted individually (requested/approved extras); jury properly found he assumed liability (though assessed no damages) |
Key Cases Cited
- Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 7 A.3d 830 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for JNOV and directed verdict)
- Brinich v. Jencka, 757 A.2d 388 (Pa. Super. 2000) (upholding oral contract modification findings based on clear and convincing evidence)
- Universal Builders, Inc. v. Moon Motor Lodge, Inc., 244 A.2d 10 (Pa. 1968) (owners who direct extra work orally may be liable despite written change-order clauses)
- Joseph v. Scranton Times, L.P., 89 A.3d 251 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for appellate review of denial of a new trial)
- Zimmerman v. Harrisburg Fudd I, L.P., 984 A.2d 497 (Pa. Super. 2009) (purpose and remedies under CASPA)