Michael Thalheimer v. Ramon and Stacey Halum
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 386
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- June 8, 2008: Halums hire Thalheimer to remove carpet/tiles and install new tiles in their home.
- Work completed in June 2008; Halums and Thalheimer verbally agreed Thalheimer would return to fix about six unsatisfactory tiles.
- Halums paid in full and gave two $100 gift cards; Thalheimer believed as a bonus.
- Over months, parties exchanged emails negotiating repair scope; Halums hired another contractor after frustration.
- June 16, 2009: Halums sue Thalheimer for breach of contract, negligence, and implied warranty of habitability.
- Bench trial awarded Halums $14,262.38; Thalheimer appealed on spoliation, economic loss, warranty, and quality grounds; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoliation of evidence waived review | Halums argue spoliation occurred | Thalheimer argues waiver and merits | Waived review; not reversible error on spoliation. |
| Economic loss doctrine applicability | Economic loss not applicable due to injury to son | Doctrine precludes tort for purely economic loss | Doctrine did not preclude negligence claim. |
| Warranty precludes breach claim | Warranty covers post-install corrections | Warranty limitations and dilatory response affect enforceability | Warranty did not bar Halums’ breach claim. |
| Quality of Thalheimer’s work | Trial evidence shows poor workmanship | Evidence supports proper workmanship | Trial court’s finding of poor workmanship affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Cent. Soya, 621 N.E.2d 1069 (Ind. 1993) (economic loss doctrine origins in product liability context)
- Gunkel v. Renovations, Inc., 822 N.E.2d 150 (Ind. 2005) (economic loss doctrine; contract governs product/service damage to product itself)
- Fleetwood Enters., Inc. v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 749 N.E.2d 492 (Ind. 2001) (availability of contract and tort remedies for mixed losses)
- Schultz v. Erie Ins. Grp., 754 N.E.2d 971 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (interpretation of ‘faulty workmanship’ in contracts; ambiguity matters)
- Binford v. Shicker, 553 N.E.2d 845 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (contract interpretation against drafter when terms are ambiguous)
- Glotzbach v. Froman, 854 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. 2006) (evidence spoliation rules; jury may infer missing evidence unfavorable to spoliating party)
- American Nat. Prop. & Cas. Co. v Wilmoth, 893 N.E.2d 1068 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (spoliation inference standard and discretionary nature)