Webster v. Pfeiffer Eng'g Co.
568 S.W.3d 371
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Webster (attorney) hired Pfeiffer (P.E.C.), an electrical engineer, on Feb 6, 2015 to provide expert services in a products‑liability case; agreed rate $225/hr; Pfeiffer billed for 108 hours.
- Pfeiffer produced reports in April 2015; Webster received them but later complained they arrived late and contained revised/new opinions he believed violated FRCP 26(a)(2)(B).
- P.E.C. invoiced multiple times beginning May 2015; Webster paid $1,500 in August 2015 and $5,000 in December 2015 with a letter acknowledging the $5,000 was the total recovered and promising to pay monthly when possible.
- Federal district court granted summary judgment to defendant/distributor on Sep 11, 2015; appeal was later dismissed after a $5,000 settlement from the defendant to Taylor.
- P.E.C. sued Webster in Pike Circuit Court for the unpaid balance ($17,856.25 after credits) on Apr 25, 2016; the circuit court granted summary judgment for P.E.C.; Webster appealed.
- The trial court relied on the doctrine of account stated; record showed Webster made no timely objections to invoices or expert qualifications and admitted indebtedness by partial payments and promise to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Webster) | Defendant's Argument (P.E.C.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether P.E.C. breached the expert contract / provided inadmissible expert work | Pfeiffer failed to perform workmanlike; opinions would not meet FRE 702/Daubert; invoices lacked detail and overcharged | Webster made no timely objections; partial payments and acknowledgment created an account stated | Court rejected breach/admissibility defense as a basis to avoid payment; found account stated |
| Whether Webster timely objected to the account/invoices | Webster contends he could not timely assess flaws and that reports violated FRCP disclosures | P.E.C. contends Webster had the reports in April, made no objections, and paid twice | Court held Webster made no timely objections and thereby acquiesced |
| Whether Webster’s payments and letter constituted assent to the balance | Webster argues payment was limited and he reserved rights to challenge expert work | P.E.C. argues payments plus letter promising monthly payments show mutual assent to balance | Court held payments and letter manifested assent and promise to pay, satisfying account stated elements |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Webster contends disputed factual issues (expert quality, billing) preclude summary judgment | P.E.C. contends undisputed facts establish account stated as a matter of law | Court affirmed summary judgment for P.E.C. because no genuine factual dispute on account stated |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (Court set standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Serv. Ctr., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476 (Ky. 1991) (summary judgment standard and appellate review explained)
- Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779 (Ky. App. 1996) (summary judgment standards cited)
- Harris v. Edward J. Miller & Son, Inc., 453 S.W.2d 739 (Ky. 1970) (account stated principles affirmed)
- Taylor v. Southwire Tools & Equip., 130 F. Supp. 3d 1017 (E.D. Ky. 2015) (district court granted summary judgment to distributor under Kentucky law)