219 A.3d 619
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Karden (Appellant) is a construction consulting/expert firm; D’Amico (Appellee) engaged Karden’s principal, Dennis Link, beginning in 2007 in connection with defects in D’Amico’s new home and related litigation.
- Karden claimed it performed ~113.27 hours of services through Dec. 2008 and sought payment after services; D’Amico testified he believed the law firm was paying and denied hiring Karden personally for home completion work.
- At first non-jury trial, the trial court found for D’Amico; this Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and held D’Amico was unjustly enriched by Karden’s construction-management services and remanded for determination of reasonable value of those services.
- On remand the trial court held a new, limited trial on damages; Karden offered Exhibit P-4 allocating 99.57 hours to construction-management services and valuing them at $17,343.30.
- The trial court rejected Link’s testimony and P-4 as unreliable and found Karden failed to prove measurable damages or that construction services conferred a benefit to D’Amico; judgment for D’Amico for $0 was entered and Karden appealed.
- The Superior Court affirmed, deferring to the trial court’s credibility determinations and concluding substantial evidence supported the finding of no proved damages despite the prior panel’s ruling of unjust enrichment on liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Karden) | Defendant's Argument (D’Amico) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Karden proved the reasonable value of construction-management services on remand | P-4 and Link’s testimony established 99.57 construction hours valued at $17,343.30; evidence was unrefuted | Link’s testimony and P-4 were unreliable; Karden did not show the services benefited the home’s completion | Trial court credited D’Amico; substantial evidence supported rejection of Karden’s damages proof; judgment affirmed |
| Whether the trial court ignored the prior remand holding that D’Amico was unjustly enriched | Remand required the court to find value; court improperly recast services as litigation support and discounted value evidence | Court properly assessed credibility and whether the services produced a measurable benefit to D’Amico | Superior Court held remand required valuation but did not mandate acceptance of Karden’s evidence; credibility findings defeated recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Prieto Corp. v. Gambone Const. Co., 100 A.3d 602 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict)
- Brown v. Trinidad, 111 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2015) (factfinder’s credibility determinations are controlling)
- Menkowitz v. Peerless Publications, Inc., 211 A.3d 797 (Pa. 2019) (JNOV relief appropriate only in clear cases; deference to trial court’s on-the-scene evaluation)
- Schenck v. K.E. David, Ltd., 666 A.2d 327 (Pa. Super. 1995) (elements of unjust enrichment)
- Ira G. Steffy & Son, Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, 7 A.3d 278 (Pa. Super. 2010) (measure enrichment by value of benefit to owner, not subcontractor’s invoice)
- D.A. Hill Co. v. Clevetrust Realty Inv'rs, 573 A.2d 1005 (Pa. 1990) (damages for unjust enrichment measured by benefit conferred)