Weitz Co. LLC v. MacKenzie House, LLC
2012 WL 18018
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Weitz Co. sued MacKenzie House and MH Metropolitan for breach of a construction contract; Arrowhead and Concorde were third-party defendants.
- MH Metropolitan terminated Weitz for cause after delays; the project finished without Weitz.
- Jury awarded MH Metropolitan liquidated damages and completion costs, Arrowhead a separate amount, Concorde favored on Weitz’s claim.
- Weitz challenged the verdict and post-judgment rulings on multiple grounds, including evidentiary and calculation challenges.
- The district court denied post-judgment motions; this appeal follows, with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judgment as a matter of law on MH Metropolitan breach | Weitz: district court erred by not granting JML against MH Metropolitan. | MH Metropolitan: evidence supported substantial compliance; jury could reasonably find breach. | No error; legally sufficient evidentiary basis supported the jury's breach finding. |
| Admission of evidence about other projects | Weitz: district court abused discretion by excluding prior project evidence. | MacKenzie/MH Metropolitan: prior acts probative only for improper purposes not at issue here. | Exclusion proper; does not affect substantial rights. |
| Liquidated damages and completion costs calculation | Weitz: damages were miscalculated; liquidated damages should be limited. | MH Metropolitan: damages reasonable; ambiguity to be resolved by jury. | Reasonable forecast; jury verdict on damages stands. |
| Judgment on Arrowhead breach claims | Weitz: district court should grant JML against Arrowhead. | Arrowhead: evidence supported its position; Weitz lacked substantial performance. | No JML; sufficient evidence supported the jury's view. |
| Default judgment against Concorde | Weitz: court should enter default against Concorde for non-appearance. | Concorde defended earlier; failure to appear did not mandatorily default. | No default; damages unresolved but jury verdict stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brockman v. Soltysiak, 49 S.W.3d 740 (Mo. App. 2001) (substantial compliance required for breach recovery)
- In re Estate of English, 691 S.W.2d 485 (Mo. App. 1985) (substantial performance depends on facts and circumstances)
- Browning v. President River Boat Casino-Missouri, Inc., 139 F.3d 631 (8th Cir. 1998) (appellate review of a jury verdict is highly deferential)
- Moore v. Board of Regents, 115 S.W.6 6 (Mo. 1908) (liquidated damages not always appropriate after abandonment)
- Twin River Construction Co. v. Public Water Dist. No. 6, 653 S.W.2d 682 (Mo. App. 1983) (divided authorities on liquidated damages; not dispositive)
- Chalfant v. Titan Distrib., Inc., 475 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of denial of judgment as a matter of law)
- United States v. Harre, 983 F.2d 128 (8th Cir. 1993) (default judgment principles when a party defends)
- PFS Distrib. Co. v. Raduechel, 574 F.3d 580 (8th Cir. 2009) (miscarriage of justice standard for new trials)
- Gallagher v. Baird, 66 N.Y.S. 759 (App. Div. 1900) (cost-to-complete vs. liquidated damages in abandonment scenarios)
- Ernery v. Freeman, 84 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. App. 2002) (damages for breach via reasonable cost to complete per contract)
- Information Sys., & Networks Corp. v. City of Kansas City, 147 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 1998) (Missouri law applied to damages for construction delays)
- Jay M. Zitter, Annotation, Liability of Contractor who Abandons Building Project for Liquidated Damages, not included; omitted due to lack of official reporter citation () (annotation referenced in analysis)