Reighard v. Yates
2012 UT 45
| Utah | 2012Background
- Mr. Yates built and resided in a Park City, Utah house; Reighards bought it from him and later found mold.
- Jury awarded Reighards damages for negligence and noneconomic damages; Yates prevailed on negligent misrepresentation; contract breach not reached.
- Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC) and Seller's Property Condition Disclosure required disclosure of mold and moisture conditions; disclosures stated no mold known by Seller.
- Independent inspection and appraisal occurred before closing; summer 2005 deck work and sprinkler changes; mold noticed in basement in Aug 2006 and remediation occurred.
- Trial court reduced the verdict by $5,000 due to a third-party settlement; issues included attorney fees and costs; appellate cross-appeal filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic loss rule applicability to house damages | Reighards argue tort recovery allowed for property damages despite contract. | Yates contends economic loss rule bars such recovery when contract governs subject matter. | Economic loss rule bars contract-covered economic damages to the house. |
| Admissibility of Dr. Cole's expert testimony | Cole's testimony is necessary to prove causation of symptoms. | Cole lacks qualifications to diagnose causation. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; Cole admissible as expert. |
| Prevailing party and attorney fees in contract suit | No prevailing contract party justifies fees. | Yates prevailed on contract; fees should be awarded. | Yates is prevailing party on contract; entitled to reasonable attorney fees; remand for allocation. |
| denial or reopening of the judgment after verdict | JNOV issues or improper instructions warrant reopening judgment. | Defer to jury verdict; no basis to reopen. | Court did not err in not reopening the judgment; defer to jury. |
| Timeliness of cross-appeal extension | Cross-appeal extension was timely due to excusable neglect. | Extension should be denied as untimely. | Trial court properly extended time to file cross-appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing Homeowners Ass'n v. Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing, LC, 2009 UT 65 (Utah Supreme Court (2009)) (economic loss rule scope in construction cases; damages to other property allowed)
- Yazd v. Woodside Homes Corp., 2006 UT 47 (Utah Supreme Court (2006)) (duty to disclose material information due to builder-homebuyer relationship)
- Jeffs v. West, 2012 UT 11 (Utah Supreme Court (2012)) (factors for determining existence of a legal duty)
- Maack v. Resource Design & Construction, Inc., 875 P.2d 570 (Utah Court of Appeals (1994)) (contract governs recovery for construction deficiencies; implied warranties context)
- WebBank v. American General Annuity Serv. Corp., 2002 UT 88 (Utah Supreme Court (2002)) (contractual duties and noncontractual restitution considerations)