Mcclincy Brothers Floor Covering, Inc., D/b/a App v. Collin Carpenter, Resps
73066-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 3, 2017Background
- Homeowners Collin and Trish Carpenter hired McClincy Brothers Floor Covering (McClincy's) to repair extensive water damage; insurer Encompass was to be billed directly. McClincy's completed phase one; phase two experienced delays and disputes over payment endorsements to Encompass.
- Project manager Randy (Randy) Brooks (former McClincy's employee) negotiated with Encompass and recommended storing most household furnishings at Crown Moving; the Carpenters later rehired another contractor to finish repairs after disputes.
- McClincy's secretly removed the Carpenters' stored furniture, refused to disclose or return it, and moved the property again after a court-ordered inspection; the furniture was ultimately returned December 18, 2013.
- Litigation: McClincy's sued the Carpenters (breach, unjust enrichment, conspiracy); Carpenters counterclaimed for breach, conversion, trespass, and CPA violations; Brooks counterclaimed for unpaid overtime and was later added as a defendant by McClincy's. Bench trial followed after several partial summary-judgment rulings.
- Trial court found McClincy's breached the contract, committed conversion and trespass, violated the CPA, and failed to pay Brooks overtime; awarded damages (including treble CPA damages), prejudgment interest, and attorney fees to Carpenters and Brooks.
- Court of Appeals affirmed all rulings except it reversed the award of prejudgment interest on the Carpenters’ conversion damages because those damages were an estimate (not liquidated).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary judgment on McClincy's unjust-enrichment claim re: patio work | Carpenters: their motion targeted all claims tied to the alleged unwritten agreement for the patio; no response from McClincy's | McClincy's: claim was added after the motion and thus not fairly before the court | Court: motion gave sufficient notice; McClincy's failed to meet burden; summary judgment affirmed for Carpenters |
| CR 41(b)(3) dismissal of McClincy's unjust-enrichment claim for interior remodel | Carpenters: accord and satisfaction established by email, signed supplements, and payment | McClincy's: payment not marked "paid in full" and negotiations continued so no satisfaction | Court: findings supported accord and satisfaction; dismissal affirmed |
| Measure of contract damages (should offset contract balance) | Carpenters: damages are amounts paid to finish work; Encompass would have paid remaining balance but for McClincy's breach | McClincy's: trial court should subtract balance owed to McClincy's as costs avoided | Court: Encompass would have paid absent McClincy's fraud; no offset; damages affirmed |
| Conversion liability and loss-of-use damages methodology | Carpenters: conversion occurred; loss-of-use measured by rental cost of substitute furniture adjusted for house size | McClincy's: injunction precluded conversion liability; damages speculative and not supported before certain dates | Court: preliminary injunction preserved status quo but did not excuse earlier conversion; rental-based estimate was reasonable; conversion damages affirmed |
| Prejudgment interest on conversion damages | Carpenters: interest appropriate because damages relate to property loss | McClincy's: conversion damages were not liquidated; prejudgment interest improper | Court: contract damages were liquidated (interest allowed); conversion damages were estimates, not liquidated — prejudgment interest reversed for conversion damages |
| CPA violation (deceptive acts in trade or commerce) | Carpenters: secret removal/retention of furniture and deceptive dealings satisfy Hangman Ridge elements | McClincy's: claimed compliance with injunction or challenged sufficiency of CPA pleading | Court: undisputed findings of secret removal, refusal to return, and deceptive conduct satisfy CPA elements; CPA violation affirmed |
| Enforceability of Brooks' April 2008 confidentiality/non-solicit/non-circumvention agreement | Brooks: agreement made after employment began; additional consideration required for noncompete-type restraints | McClincy's: provisions are not a noncompete and enforceable without extra consideration | Court: agreement functions as a noncompete; independent consideration required and absent; summary judgment for Brooks affirmed |
| Overtime calculation for Brooks | Brooks: average overtime hours sufficed given record gaps; McClincy's failed to prove fluctuating-workweek agreement | McClincy's: trial court should apply fluctuating workweek; Brooks must prove exact hours | Court: no clear fluctuating-workweek agreement; averaging reasonable given evidence; overtime award affirmed |
| Attorney-fee awards at trial and appeal | Carpenters/Brooks: submitted billing and expert declarations supporting reasonableness; fees recoverable under CPA and wage/contract statutes | McClincy's: billing was block-billed and inadequately detailed; prevented meaningful challenge | Court: trial court’s findings on reasonableness and ability to assess entries adequate; trial fee awards affirmed; appellate fees awarded to successful parties |
Key Cases Cited
- Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801 (Wash. 1992) (unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Eastlake Const. Co. v. Hess, 102 Wn.2d 30 (Wash. 1984) (measure of contract damages to put injured party in position had contract been performed)
- Prier v. Refrigeration Eng'g Co., 74 Wn.2d 25 (Wash. 1968) (definition of liquidated claim for prejudgment interest)
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (Wash. 1986) (elements for private CPA action)
- Innis v. Tandy Corp., 141 Wn.2d 517 (Wash. 2000) (fluctuating-workweek pay method and regular rate computation)
- Labriola v. Pollard Grp., Inc., 152 Wn.2d 828 (Wash. 2004) (consideration required for noncompete agreements signed after employment begins)
- Shinn v. Thrust IV, Inc., 56 Wn. App. 827 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990) (damages need not be mathematically exact but must have reasonable basis)
- Scoccolo Constr., Inc. ex rel. Curb One, Inc. v. City of Renton, 158 Wn.2d 506 (Wash. 2006) (prejudgment interest available for liquidated claims)
- Berryman v. Metcalf, 177 Wn. App. 644 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (trial-court obligations and required findings when awarding attorney fees)