Pierre Investments, Inc. v. David Corona D/B/A Corona and Son Construction
05-14-00896-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 26, 2015Background
- Pierre Investments owned two residential lots (2000 & 2004 St. Pierre, Carrollton, TX) under contracts to sell and build two custom homes for buyer Inna Geyvandova.
- On or about October 28, 2010, defendant David Corona (d/b/a Corona and Son Construction) intentionally dumped multiple truckloads of construction debris on Pierre’s lot(s).
- Geyvandova discovered the dumping, invoked contract provisions assuring lots were free of encumbrances/ready to build, and terminated the purchase and construction contracts, citing the unexpected dumping.
- Pierre sued Corona for trespass, tortious interference with existing and prospective contracts, negligence/gross negligence, and sought lost-profit damages and related costs.
- At trial the court ruled as a matter of law that Corona trespassed but granted a directed verdict for defendant on Pierre’s claim for contract-loss damages, awarding only $1 in nominal trespass damages.
- Pierre appealed, arguing the evidence raised fact issues (causation and damages) and that the directed verdict was improper; he sought a new trial or reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdict on lost-profit damages was proper | Pierre: evidence (testimony, buyer letters, notice of termination) shows dumping preceded and caused contract cancellations and lost profits, creating fact issues for jury | Corona: trial court concluded plaintiff failed to prove causal connection between trespass and lost-sale/construction contract damages | Trial court directed verdict for defendant on lost-contract damages; plaintiff appeals, arguing conflicting evidence made directed verdict improper |
| Whether trespass supports recovery of lost profits from cancelled sale/construction contracts | Pierre: trespass law permits recovery of restoration costs, loss of use, and lost expected profits caused by temporary injury to land; here lost-sale and construction profits flowed from dumping | Corona: (implicit) plaintiff did not prove proximate cause or that defendant’s act was sole cause of contract terminations | Trial court found trespass occurred but held plaintiff failed to establish causal link for contract-loss damages; awarded $1 nominal trespass damages |
| Whether tortious interference claim should survive directed verdict | Pierre: Corona willfully and intentionally interfered by illegally dumping, proximate cause of contract loss; Prudential and other cases show justification and causation are jury questions when evidence conflicts | Corona: argued (permitted inference) buyer had right to terminate or other reasons justified termination; trial court resolved for defendant | Trial court granted directed verdict for defendant on interference; plaintiff appeals asserting evidence raised fact issues |
| Whether new trial is warranted in the interest of justice | Pierre: verdict against plaintiff’s position is against great weight/preponderance; court should grant new trial where jury determination was improperly taken away | Corona: (implicit) trial court’s legal ruling justified; no new trial needed | Trial court denied relief; appellant requests appellate court to reverse and remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Cline v. Ins. Exchange of Houston, 154 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1943) (standard for instructed verdict/judgment as a matter of law)
- Porterfield v. Brinegar, 719 S.W.2d 558 (Tex. 1986) (directed verdict standards)
- Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Financial Review Servs., Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2000) (directed verdict improper where evidence on justification and causation was inconclusive)
- Freeman v. Greenbriar Homes, Inc., 715 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986) (appellate review views evidence favorably to losing party when assessing directed verdict)
- Bayer Corp. v. DX Terminals, Ltd., 214 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (conflicting evidence on substantial impairment and cancellation justified denial of directed verdict)
- M.N. Dannenbaum v. Brummerhop, 840 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992) (affirming directed verdict where solicitation was lawful and termination rights existed)