976 F.3d 509
5th Cir.2020Background
- Team Contractors (general contractor) sued Waypoint NOLA (owner) for breach of contract and sued Hogan Campis Architects (HCA) and KLG (engineer) for negligence after construction change orders increased costs and delayed the Hyatt House project.
- First jury trial (Feb–Mar 2018): jury answered “No” that Waypoint breached the contract, awarded $565,979.99 in damages overall, and allocated 30% to HCA, 60% to KLG, and 10% (5% Waypoint, 5% its manager) among Waypoint-related defendants.
- District court entered judgment for Team on negligence claims against HCA and KLG but entered judgment for Waypoint on breach of contract. Team moved to amend judgment; the court converted the motion to a new-trial motion and granted a partial new trial on the breach claim, finding the first verdict irreconcilably inconsistent.
- Second trial (Apr 2019): jury found Waypoint liable on breach and awarded Team $59,746.43; Waypoint appealed.
- Fifth Circuit: held the first verdict was a Rule 49(b) general verdict (not a Rule 49(a) special verdict), concluded Team waived any inconsistency objection by failing to object before the jury was discharged, vacated the district court’s new-trial judgment, and remanded to reinstate the original judgment and address attorneys’ fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Team) | Defendant's Argument (Waypoint) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by granting a new trial for an allegedly inconsistent verdict | The jury answers were inconsistent (found no breach but allocated fault); a new trial was needed to correct the verdict | The verdict was a general verdict; Team waived any inconsistency objection by not objecting while jury was empaneled | Granting a new trial was error because the objection was waived; original verdict must be reinstated |
| Whether the verdict was a Rule 49(a) special verdict or a Rule 49(b) general verdict with written questions | The verdict should be treated as special, so late objection could be entertained | The verdict required jurors to apply law and determine who prevailed (Rule 49(b)), so waiver rules apply | The verdict was a general verdict with written questions under Rule 49(b) |
| Whether a party waives an inconsistency objection by failing to object before the jury is discharged | Late objection is permissible because the verdict was effectively special | Waiver applies to general verdicts if not raised while jury is empaneled | Waiver applies; Team waived the right to challenge inconsistency by not objecting before discharge |
| Who is entitled to contractual attorneys’ fees as the "substantially prevailing party" | Team: ultimately won on breach at second trial and seeks fees | Waypoint: sought fees after first trial based on prevailing on breach; district court did not decide finally | Fifth Circuit remanded for the district court to determine fees (court did not decide on appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Matherne, 471 F.2d 911 (5th Cir. 1973) (answers to interrogatories must be reconcilable in a view that makes the jury’s answers logical and probable)
- Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Ltd. v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd., 369 U.S. 355 (U.S. 1962) (if a view of the case makes jury answers consistent, the court must adopt it)
- Montano v. Orange County, 842 F.3d 865 (5th Cir. 2016) (objections to inconsistencies between a general verdict and interrogatories are waived if not raised while jury is empaneled)
- Moss v. Princip, 913 F.3d 508 (5th Cir. 2019) (district court cannot enter judgment on irreconcilable special verdict answers; a new trial is required)
- Mercer v. Long Mfg. N.C., Inc., 665 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1982) (distinguishes special verdicts from general verdicts where multiple general verdicts were submitted)
- Alverez v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 674 F.2d 1037 (5th Cir. 1982) (court must look beyond interrogatory answers to instructions when reconciling verdicts)
- Blackwell v. Cities Service Oil Co., 532 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1976) (district court may not enter judgment when there are inconsistent answers to interrogatories)
- Stancill v. McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., 497 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1974) (failure to timely object to inconsistency in a general verdict waives the objection)
- Mason v. Ford Motor Co., 307 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2002) (distinguishes special and general verdicts by whether jurors applied law to facts)
- Lavoie v. Pacific Press & Shear Co., 975 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1992) (answers requiring application of legal principles by the jury indicate a general verdict rather than a special verdict)