One Bluff Drive, LLC v. K. A. P., Inc.
330 Ga. App. 45
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- K.A.R., Inc. (KAP), a general contractor, contracted with Kenneth Hardigan/One Bluff Drive, LLC to supervise renovations at Hardigan’s Savannah residence; scope expanded after initial architect changes and included billing on a time-and-materials basis.
- KAP produced a $1,092,943 Base Bid (plus a $107,057 contingency = $1.2M) but disclaimed overhead/profit; parties understood changes would alter cost.
- Hardigan repeatedly expanded the scope, sometimes requiring demolition of completed work; KAP finished the project, obtained a certificate of occupancy, and invoiced final sums totaling $511,243.
- Parties stipulated Hardigan paid KAP $1,102,479.30; KAP claimed total project costs exceeded $1.5M and sought recovery for unpaid amounts (jury awarded $400,000 plus $112,221 in fees).
- Procedural history: appellants moved for partial summary judgment (arguing Base Bid was fixed-price limiting damages) and in limine to exclude KAP’s total-cost evidence; both motions were denied, the case went to jury, and defendants appealed only the three evidentiary/procedural rulings (not sufficiency of evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (KAP) | Defendant's Argument (Hardigan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in charging jury on quantum meruit | KAP argued pleadings and evidence supported a quantum meruit claim for extra work outside Base Bid | Hardigan argued KAP never pleaded quantum meruit and so jury should not be charged on it | Court held pleadings and pretrial order sufficiently raised quantum meruit; charge proper |
| Whether KAP was required to plead breach and quantum meruit in separate counts | KAP relied on notice pleading under Civil Practice Act; no separate counts needed | Hardigan relied on older authority requiring separate counts | Court held CPA supersedes older cases; separate counts not required |
| Whether denial of partial summary judgment limiting damages to listed "extras" was error | KAP argued damages could include all time-and-materials costs presented at trial | Hardigan argued damages should be limited to costs for discrete change categories totaling a smaller sum | Issue is moot on appeal because the damages question was tried and decided by the jury; denial harmless |
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying motion in limine to exclude KAP’s total-cost evidence | KAP maintained parties agreed time-and-materials billing so all labor/material costs were relevant | Hardigan argued only the incremental change costs should be admissible and total-cost method should be disallowed except when change costs are unavailable | Court held denial was not an abuse: parties agreed on time-and-materials billing, so total cost evidence was admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Tutt, 306 Ga. App. 377 (general standard for construing evidence in favor of verdict)
- Jones v. Sperau, 275 Ga. 213 (trial court duty to charge law supported by any evidence)
- Puritan Mills, Inc. v. Pickering Constr. Co., 152 Ga. App. 309 (extra services outside contract may be recoverable)
- Gosule v. Bestco, Inc., 227 Ga. App. 863 (notice pleading can raise quantum meruit even without explicit count)
- Llop v. McDaniel, Chorey & Taylor, 171 Ga. App. 400 (jury charge on quantum meruit appropriate where services accepted and unpaid)
- Legacy Academy v. Mamilove, LLC, 328 Ga. App. 775 (denial of summary judgment is moot when trial addresses same issue)
- Coregis Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 282 Ga. App. 488 (exception when legal issue from summary judgment was not tried)
- Andrews v. Wilbanks, 265 Ga. 555 (motions in limine to exclude evidence should be granted with great care)
- Gerdes v. Russell Rowe Communications, 232 Ga. App. 534 (quantum meruit barred only where express contract covers same subject; extra work recoverable)
- Biederbeck v. Marbut, 294 Ga. App. 799 (contractor may assert quantum meruit when evidence conflicts on whether work was within original agreement)