Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippell LLP v. Colaizzo
39 Pa. D. & C.5th 87
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2014Background
- Plaintiff law firm (Kline & Warner members) and defendant entered a written May 5, 2005 engagement letter for representation in litigation over development/sale of the "Queen’s Walk" property; hourly rates for key attorneys were stated.
- Firm provided representation in two protracted actions (Montrose and Gumbo) and regularly billed defendant; defendant paid about $271,000 but stopped paying in June 2007; outstanding balance claimed $375,251.14.
- Defendant asserted an oral promise by attorney Parry capping fees at $150,000; no written modification or corroborating firm evidence was offered.
- Plaintiff withdrew from one action for nonpayment and sued for breach of contract, seeking unpaid fees; quantum meruit and account stated claims were dismissed at trial.
- Jury found a valid contract, breach by defendant for nonpayment, and awarded plaintiff $350,000; post-trial motions for JNOV and new trial were denied by the court.
- Defendant appealed arguing insufficient evidence to support the verdict, failure to prove billing fairness/good faith, and erroneous omission of a jury instruction on good faith/fair dealing with respect to billing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved breach of contract for unpaid legal fees | Engagement letter and regular billing + partial payments establish contract, services performed, and unpaid balance | Plaintiff failed to prove billing practices, work performed, and fairness; therefore no breach should be found | Court: Sufficient evidence supported contract, performance, and damages; verdict stands |
| Whether plaintiff had to prove billing was "fair and reasonable" or act in good faith regarding fees | Not required for breach claim; contract terms control | Trial court should have required proof of fairness/good faith and instructed jury accordingly | Court: No legal requirement to prove fee fairness in a breach action; refusal to give such instruction proper |
| Whether jury instructions were legally inadequate (good faith/fair dealing) | Jury was properly instructed on breach elements | Omission of instruction on billing good faith prejudiced defense | Court: Charge accurately reflected applicable law; no instruction required on inapplicable theory |
| Whether a JNOV or new trial was warranted (weight/sufficiency of evidence) | Evidence and inferences support verdict; no basis for JNOV/new trial | Verdict was against weight of evidence and legally insufficient | Court: No abuse of discretion; verdict not so contrary to evidence as to shock conscience; post-trial relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Grand Central Sanitation, Inc., 634 A.2d 237 (Pa. Super. 1993) (standard for reviewing verdict in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, 760 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. 2000) (directed verdict and JNOV standards are identical)
- Mitchell v. Moore, 729 A.2d 1200 (Pa. Super. 1999) (reversal of JNOV only for abuse of discretion or controlling legal error)
- Ferry v. Fisher, 709 A.2d 399 (Pa. Super. 1998) (appellate standard of review same as trial court for JNOV requests)
- Lanning v. W., 803 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2002) (new trial for verdict against weight of evidence only when verdict shocks the conscience)
- Pittsburgh Const. Co. v. Griffith, 834 A.2d 572 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required to prove breach of contract)
- Cruz v. N.E. Hosp., 801 A.2d 602 (Pa. Super. 2002) (purpose and requirements for jury instructions)