LOUISBURG BLDG. & DEV'T CO. v. Albright
252 P.3d 597
Kan. Ct. App.2011Background
- Louisburg Building built a home for the Albrights with multiple defects and budget overruns.
- Trial court held Louisburg liable for breach of contract and KCPA violations, awarding damages and civil penalties.
- Albrights added Williams (Louisburg’s owner) and Carson Group as defendants; alter-ego theory pursued but rejected.
- Bifurcated trial: liability phase (contract and KCPA) followed by alter-ego/agency phase; liability found against Louisburg, not Williams or Carson Group.
- Damages for breach of contract calculated by district court; remanded because the method did not reflect proper expectation damages in a cost-plus context.
- Cross-appeal and related issues address unconscionability, attorney fees, and fraud claims; most were resolved in Louisburg’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal KCPA liability of Williams | Albrights assert Williams personally liable under KCPA. | Williams argues theory not raised below; not proper on appeal. | Not reached; new theory not considered |
| Alter ego finding of Williams | Williams/Carson Group used to perpetuate fraud/injustice. | District court properly dismissed alter-ego claims. | Affirmed: Williams not alter ego; no injustice shown |
| Damages computation for Williams' breach of contract | Damages should restore expected position; use higher cost to complete; offset for Albrights’ breach improper. | District court’s method supported by evidence; proper adjustment factors exist. | Remanded for recalculation using proper measure in cost-plus context |
| KCPA unconscionability by Carson Group use | Carson Group’s involvement and lack of disclosure were unconscionable. | Unconscionability not shown under statutory factors; no disregard of industry norms. | affirmed: not unconscionable |
| Attorney fees under KCPA | Prevailing party entitled to fees given KCPA violations. | Discretionary award; many theories; not automatic; low success rate undermines award. | No abuse of discretion; fees denied or not compelled |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Graeber v. Marion County Landfill, Inc., 276 Kan. 328 (2003) (alter-ego and injustice considerations in veil piercing)
- Hill v. Kansas Dept. of Labor, 42 Kan. App. 2d 215 (2009) (intermediate appellate review; factors for piercing corporate veil)
- Williamson v. Amrani, 283 Kan. 227 (2007) (duty to disclose omitted facts; unconscionability framework)
- ConfiMed.com, 272 Kan. 1313 (2002) (unconscionability under KCPA; 1973 comments and broad approach)
- Kilpatrick Bros., Inc. v. Poynter, 205 Kan. 787 (1970) (general theory permitting disregard of corporate entity for equity)
- Equitable Life Leasing Corp. v. Abbick, 243 Kan. 513 (1988) (punitive damages in fraud/breach contexts; interplay with contract)
- Described authorities referenced in context of economic-loss doctrine, N/A (2000s) (economic-loss doctrine; duplicative contract/tort remedies)