Vol Repairs II, Inc. v. Knighten
322 Ga. App. 416
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Knighten bought a 1999 Mercedes in 2008; in Feb. 2010 Vol Repairs (owned by Rodriguez) replaced the transmission with a used unit for about $3,712.22.
- Continued shifting problems led Vol Repairs to replace the transmission control unit in Mar. 2010 and later (Dec. 2010/Jan. 2011) to replace the transmission again after Knighten paid an additional $1,001; Knighten understood this would be a rebuilt transmission installation.
- In Apr. 2011 a Mercedes dealer found the Vol Repairs unit leaking and installed a rebuilt transmission for $5,268.89, characterizing Vol Repairs’ unit as a used transmission.
- Knighten sued Vol Repairs and Rodriguez for fraud, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and negligence; the trial court directed verdicts in part and submitted other claims to the jury.
- Jury verdict: Rodriguez liable for negligence ($2,750) and attorney fees ($8,739.10); Vol Repairs found liable on implied covenant of good faith ($1,001) but awarded $0 on breach of contract, negligence, and fraud claims.
- Defendants appealed denial of directed verdict on attorney fees, denial of directed verdict on implied-covenant claim, and exclusion of cross-examining Knighten about his insurance-adjuster background; Knighten cross-appealed directed verdict in defendants’ favor on some claims and disallowance of part of his requested attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11 were proper against Rodriguez | Knighten argued Defendants acted in bad faith or were stubbornly litigious, justifying fees | Rodriguez argued no evidence of bad faith; only negligence shown, which cannot support fees | Reversed as to fees against Rodriguez — insufficient evidence of bad faith or lack of bona fide controversy; directed verdict should have been granted on fees against Rodriguez |
| Whether jury could award damages for breach of implied covenant of good faith against Vol Repairs when breach of contract award was $0 | Knighten contended implied-covenant breach was separate and compensable | Vol Repairs argued inconsistency: no contract damages so implied-covenant award improper | Affirmed for implied-covenant award: jury found breach (award $1,001) despite $0 contract damages; court found no error |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by barring cross-examination of Knighten about being an insurance adjuster | Knighten’s experience was probative of credibility and damages issues | Defendants argued they should probe adjuster background; court excluded under collateral-source concerns and scope/relevance discretion | No abuse of discretion; trial court properly limited scope of cross-examination to avoid collateral-source issues and irrelevant matters |
| Standard of review for directed verdict / JNOV | N/A (governing law) | N/A | Applied standard resolving evidence and ambiguities for verdict; directed verdict/JNOV appropriate only when evidence demands a certain verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Warren v. Weber & Warren Anesthesia Svcs., 272 Ga. App. 232 (2005) (standard for reviewing directed verdict and JNOV)
- Mitchell v. MARTA, 289 Ga. App. 1 (2007) (trial court’s discretion to limit cross-examination scope)
- Lowery v. Roper, 293 Ga. App. 243 (2008) (attorney fees under § 13-6-11 require bad faith; negligence alone insufficient)
- Harper v. Barge Air Conditioning, 313 Ga. App. 474 (2011) (collateral-source rule bars evidence of third-party payments and related matters)
- Level One Contact v. BJL Enterprises, 305 Ga. App. 78 (2010) (trial court’s discretion in controlling cross-examination scope)