Process Engineers & Constructors, Inc. v. DiGregorio, Inc.
2014 R.I. LEXIS 111
| R.I. | 2014Background
- Brown contracted with Bond Brothers to replace high-temp insulated campus piping; Bond Brothers subcontracted installation work to DiGregorio, which sub-subcontracted installation to Process Engineers & Constructors (Process).
- The sub-subcontract required written, signed change orders by owner/contractor/architect for extra work.
- After installation, insulation inside some pipe became wet; Process replaced damaged sections and submitted invoices for unpaid work and back charges, including increased bond premium and pipe replacement costs.
- Process sued DiGregorio for breach of contract and quantum meruit; the trial court found Process failed on breach of contract (no proven written change orders) but awarded Process quantum meruit recovery for the bond premium and replacement pipe (plus an omitted invoice later added).
- The Superior Court entered judgment for Process for $94,083.04; DiGregorio appealed, arguing insufficiency of proof of benefit/acceptance and that back charges were not shown to be fair, reasonable, or owed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for quantum meruit (pipe replacement) | Process argued it only needed to show its loss was not its fault to recover; it performed the work and was not paid. | DiGregorio argued Process had to prove the excess costs were caused by defendant, a changed/unforeseen condition, and not by plaintiff’s actions or inefficiencies. | Court held Process needed only to show its loss was not its own fault; competent evidence supported finding Process was not responsible for the wet insulation. |
| Proof of benefit/acceptance for quantum meruit | Process relied on invoices, testimony, and that DiGregorio withheld payments despite work being performed. | DiGregorio claimed the trial justice improperly relied on opening statement and that Process failed to show it conferred an accepted benefit. | Court found sufficient evidence (invoices, testimony, DiGregorio’s interrogatory answer and withheld sum) to support benefit and acceptance. |
| Fairness and reasonableness of charges (back charges) | Process submitted invoices as prima facie evidence of value and argued defendant never contested reasonableness at trial. | DiGregorio argued Process failed to prove charges fair and reasonable and thus could not recover on quantum meruit. | Court applied rule that plaintiff need only present value evidence; burden shifts to defendant to prove unreasonableness. DiGregorio did not contest reasonableness, so charges were reasonable. |
| Role of contractual change-order requirement | Process contended it performed extra work despite no formal change orders. | DiGregorio relied on unambiguous subcontract clause requiring written, signed change orders to deny breach. | Court affirmed trial court dismissal of breach claim: Process failed to satisfy conditions precedent for contractual recovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wellington Condominium Association v. Wellington Cove Condominium Association, 68 A.3d 594 (R.I. 2013) (deference to trial justice’s factual findings in nonjury cases)
- Hernandez v. JS Pallet Co., 41 A.3d 978 (R.I. 2012) (standard for appellate review of trial justice findings)
- Lamarque v. Centreville Savings Bank, 22 A.3d 1136 (R.I. 2011) (grounds for reversal in nonjury cases)
- Cathay Cathay, Inc. v. Vindalu, LLC, 962 A.2d 740 (R.I. 2009) (quoting standards for review)
- National Chain Co. v. Campbell, 487 A.2d 132 (R.I. 1985) (quantum meruit requires benefit conferred and potential unjust enrichment)
- Fondedile, S.A. v. C.E. Maguire, Inc., 610 A.2d 87 (R.I. 1992) (elements for quasi-contract/unjust enrichment recovery)
- Multi-State Restoration, Inc. v. DWS Properties, LLC, 61 A.3d 414 (R.I. 2013) (quasi-contract and unjust enrichment treated similarly)
- Salo Landscape & Construction Co. v. Liberty Electric Co., 376 A.2d 1379 (R.I. 1977) (owner’s nonpayment allows quantum meruit recovery for fair and reasonable value)
- Iannuccillo v. Material Sand and Stone Corp., 713 A.2d 1234 (R.I. 1998) (discusses recovery under quantum meruit when fair value is realized)