Reede Construction, Inc. v. South Dakota Department of Transportation
2017 SD 63
| S.D. | 2017Background
- DOT contracted with Reede (2006) to perform concrete pavement work with completion date June 29, 2007; Reede proposed and DOT approved a modified concrete mix subject to contractor responsibility for meeting specs and workability.
- DOT discovered widespread cracking, joint spalling, and finish defects in late 2006–2007 and repeatedly requested repairs; DOT and Reede disputed whether damages were caused by mix design (contractor responsibility) or other events.
- Reede agreed to repair certain cracks prior to opening and sought reimbursement for repairs allegedly caused by unforeseeable events; DOT demanded Reede perform and generally insisted Reede bear repair costs unless a formal claim was filed.
- Litigation: Reede sued (breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment) in March 2009; DOT counterclaimed (breach of contract, breach of implied warranty). A ten-day jury trial in 2015 produced a general verdict awarding zero damages to either party.
- DOT moved for a new trial claiming insufficient evidence; the circuit court denied the motion and DOT appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by denying a new trial for insufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reede) | Defendant's Argument (DOT) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOT preserved its sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge on appeal | Reede: DOT failed to preserve review because it did not make a timely motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or other apt pre-verdict motion; post-verdict new-trial motion alone does not preserve the issue | DOT: A post-verdict motion for new trial under SDCL 15-6-59(a)(6) preserves the insufficiency claim for appellate review | Held: DOT’s failure to move for JMOL at trial forecloses appellate review of its insufficiency argument; a new-trial motion alone is insufficient here |
| Whether a motion for JMOL is required before seeking a new trial for insufficient evidence | Reede: SDCL and precedent require a JMOL or other apt motion to preserve insufficiency claims; new-trial motion tests weight not legal sufficiency | DOT: Argued sufficiency review should be available despite not moving for JMOL because it sought a new trial on that ground | Held: Court adopted view that failure to make JMOL precludes converting a new-trial motion into a JMOL on appeal; DOT waived JMOL review by declining to move at trial |
| Whether the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury’s general verdict | Reede: Evidence supported defenses and causation disputes; multiple plausible bases justified the verdict | DOT: Argued overwhelming evidence showed Reede breached contract and caused DOT’s damages | Held: Court would not resolve sufficiency on the merits because DOT forfeited JMOL and a general verdict could rest on valid defenses; therefore no reversible error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006) (failure to renew JMOL or move for new trial precludes trial-court review of sufficiency challenge)
- Bedney v. Heidt, 578 N.W.2d 570 (S.D. 1998) (methods preserving insufficiency claims do not include a new-trial motion alone in certain contexts)
- ING Global v. United Parcel Serv. Oasis Supply Corp., 757 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2014) (post-trial motion not properly substituting for JMOL when seeking judgment notwithstanding jury verdict)
- Gettysburg Sch. Dist. 53-1 v. Helms & Assocs., 751 N.W.2d 266 (S.D. 2008) (a reviewing court will presume a general verdict rests on one or all presented theories)