WORTHAM BROS., INC. v. Haffner
347 S.W.3d 356
Tex. App.2011Background
- Haffners, after a May 2006 hailstorm, contracted Wortham Bros. to replace roofs on two Brownwood structures (1912 First Street and 2001 Belmeade Drive).
- Written contracts: 1912 First Street for $8,492.41; 2001 Belmeade Drive for $6,420.67; Staton and Rivera were subcontractors for these jobs, respectively.
- Haffners withheld payment for the Belmeade Drive roof due to perceived deficiencies in both projects and later hired Campbell Construction and Roofing to redo the roofs at considerable additional cost.
- Haffners testified about leaks, unremoved original decking, nails through eaves, and overall dissatisfaction with Wortham Bros.' work; they subsequently paid Campbell for new roofs totaling $20,280.
- Trial court found Wortham Bros. liable under DTPA, awarding actual damages of $19,153.49 and trebling it to $57,460.47, with proportionate sub-liability to Staton and Rivera.
- On appeal, Wortham Bros. challenged the damages evidence as legally insufficient and the court reversed and rendered in its favor due to lack of competent damages proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of damages evidence | Haffner: repairs were necessary; costs were reasonable; owner testimony suffices. | Wortham Bros.: expert testimony required; owner testimony alone is insufficient for repair costs. | Damages evidence insufficient; reverse and render for Wortham Bros. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. Lautensack, 201 S.W.3d 771 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006) (expert testimony needed for necessity/reasonableness of repairs)
- Ebby Halliday Real Estate, Inc. v. Murnan, 916 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996) (necessity/reasonableness of repairs evidence required)
- Liptak v. Pensabene, 736 S.W.2d 953 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1987) (expert testimony generally required for repairs)
- Reid Road Mun. Util. Dist. No. 2 v. Speedy Stop Food Stores, Ltd., 337 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. 2011) (property owners may testify about property value but not necessarily repair cost reasonableness)
- McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. 1986) (trial court has discretion on expert damage testimony; cannot rely on owner experience for large repairs)
- Terminix Int'l, Inc. v. Lucci, 670 S.W.2d 657 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1984) (de minimis homeowner repairs distinguished from major repairs requiring expert proof)
- Jordan Ford, Inc. v. Alsbury, 625 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1981) (ownership testimony does not automatically prove reasonableness of repair costs)
- Carrow v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 781 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.App.-Austin 1989) (expert testimony generally required for specialized repair costs)
- F.F.E. Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Fulgham, 154 S.W.3d 84 (Tex. 2004) (specialized knowledge requires expert testimony in damages)