Waldron Electric v. Caseber, D.
161 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Waldron Electric (contractor) entered into a written home-improvement contract with Daniel and Margaret Caseber on Sept. 8, 2012 for installation of surge and lightning protection; contract included HICPA three-business-day rescission notice.
- Waldron performed and completed the work the same day, charged a $65 house-call fee and total $870; he was paid and left.
- Two days later (first business day after signing) the Casebers sent a certified notice of cancellation under HICPA; Waldron refunded the payment and demanded return of installed equipment.
- Dispute arose over whether Caseber attempted to return the installed surge protector/lightning arrestor; trial court admitted testimony about the attempted return but had earlier barred evidence of the current condition of the home wiring after a discovery/inspection order.
- At bench trial, the court awarded Waldron $196 (house-call fee and transfer costs); Waldron moved for post-trial relief seeking recovery of the reasonable value of services under 73 P.S. § 517.7(g).
- Trial court denied recovery under § 517.7(g) reasoning that a valid contract existed (compliant with § 517.7(a)) and thus contractor was limited to contract remedies; Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on § 517.7(g).
Issues
| Issue | Waldron's Argument | Casebers' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of testimony about attempted return of equipment | Testimony about return is relevant and permissible | Barred by court order precluding evidence of current wiring condition | Court affirmed admission: testimony concerned return of equipment, not wiring condition; no abuse of discretion (admission upheld) |
| Whether contractor may recover reasonable value under HICPA § 517.7(g) despite a valid contract complying with § 517.7(a) | § 517.7(g) expressly allows recovery of reasonable value if contractor complied with § 517.7(a) and equity favors recovery | If a valid § 517.7(a)-compliant contract exists, contractor is limited to contract damages (no § 517.7(g) recovery) | Reversed trial court: plain language of § 517.7(g) permits recovery of reasonable value even where contract meets § 517.7(a); remanded to determine whether recovery would be equitable and measure of damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Shafer Elec. & Constr. v. Mantia, 96 A.3d 989 (Pa. 2014) (addressed HICPA remedies and interplay between statutory compliance and equitable recovery)
- Renninger v. A & R Machine Shop, 163 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2017) (trial-court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- B & L Asphalt Indus., Inc. v. Fusco, 753 A.2d 264 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth, 52 A.3d 1077 (Pa. 2012) (statutory interpretation: use plain meaning to ascertain legislative intent)