Esprit Log and Timber Frame Homes, Inc. d/b/a Fireside Log Homes sued Ricky Wilcox and Sherry Wilcox seeking damages for breach of contract. The Wilcoxes answered and asserted a counterclaim against Esprit Log and Don Mahaffy, d/b/a Fireside Log Homes (collectively, “Fireside”)
1
“There is a presumption in favor of the validity of verdicts. And after rendition of a verdict, all the evidence and every presumption and inference arising therefrom, must be construed most favorably towards upholding the verdict.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Williamson v. Strickland & Smith, Inc.,
When the logs arrived at the construction site, they were not pre-cut or pre-drilled. The Wilcoxes met with Mahaffy, who informed them that Fireside’s machinery was unable to pre-cut and pre-drill the logs, but that Fireside had decided to ship the logs to avoid delays. According to Mr. Wilcox, a crane had to stay on site while the logs were cut and drilled, and in some cases individual logs had to be hoisted into place, marked, and then removed for cutting. It took five months for the Wilcoxes to complete the walls, notwithstanding Fireside’s representation that it would take only two or three extra days to cut and drill the logs on site.
There were also problems with the completion of the roof system. Fireside contracted with Canadian-based Charlie Patrick to construct the roof. Patrick and his crew were unable to cross the United States border. Patrick sent another crew to install the roof, but the crew left the project unfinished because Fireside refused to pay Patrick for certain labor costs. Fireside decided to use a local crew to work on the roof, supervised by Rhodes. Fireside instructed Rhodes to send the crew to other job sites, causing delays. According to Rhodes, the stairway designed by Fireside did not fit and had to be moved, causing more delays, and Rhodes acknowledged that certain logs supplied by Fireside were mismatched, causing a portion of the work to be torn down and redone.
Mr. Wilcox testified that more that $100,000 in additional supplies, expenses, and labor was required to repair and complete Fireside’s work. He also contended that the Wilcoxes paid between 5/8 and 3/4 of $335,000 in interest expenses attributable to construction delays caused by Fireside. The Wilcoxes eventually sold the completed residence for $1,620,000.
1. Fireside claims that the trial court erred in overruling its motion for new trial because there was no competent evidence to support the jury’s verdict on the Wilcoxes’ counterclaim. We disagree.
“[T]he denial of a motion for a new trial is ... a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Accordingly, it will not be disturbed if there is any evidence to authorize it.” (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.)
Defusco v. Free,
[a]s a general rule, damages for defective construction, whether those damages are the result of a breach of contract or negligence of the contractor, are determined by measuring the cost of repairing or restoring the damage, unless the cost of repair is disproportionate to the property’s probable loss of value.
(Citations omitted.)
John Thurmond & Assocs. v. Kennedy,
Fireside also complains that the Wilcoxes failed to prove damages with respect to interest costs stemming from Fireside’s breach of contract. “Damages recoverable for a breach of contract are such as arise naturally and according to the usual course of things from such breach and such as the parties contemplated, when the contract was made, as the probable result of its breach.” OCGA § 13-6-2. Further,
[r]emote or consequential damages are not recoverable unless they can be traced solely to the breach of the contract or unless they are capable of exact computation, such as the profits which are the immediate fruit of the contract, and are independent of any collateral enterprise entered into in contemplation of the contract.
OCGA § 13-6-8.
The evidence shows that during contract negotiations Mr. Wilcox told Mahaffy that the Wilcoxes would be borrowing “a huge amount of money[,] . . . almost [one] million dollars” to fund the construction of the house and that “the amount of interest could eat me alive if it wasn’t done quickly.” In light of these concerns, Mahaffy agreed that Fireside’s work would be a “priority job.” Mr. Wilcox testified that 10 months in construction delays, and therefore between 5/8 and 3/4 of $355,000 in interest costs, were attributable to Fireside.
3
It follows
that “the jury would have been authorized to conclude that [Fireside’s] failure to comply with the contract resulted in increased interest costs to [the Wilcoxes] and that such damages were within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made,” ((citation omitted)
Executive Constr. v. Geduldig,
Fireside also contends that various costs specifically claimed by the Wilcoxes were too speculative to be awarded as damages. Mr. Wilcox testified at length as to the costs associated with repairing and completing Fireside’s work. Pretermitting whether any specific cost item was supported by insufficient data, the consequential damages associated with the interest costs were alone
2. Fireside claims that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a new trial on the grounds that the punitive damages award was not supported by the evidence. 5 We disagree.
Punitive damages may be awarded only in such tort actions in which it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.
OCGA § 51-12-5.1 (b). We will uphold a punitive damages award if there is any evidence to support it.
Paine v. Nations,
As a rule, “[p]unitive damages may only be awarded in tort
actions in which there is a valid claim for actual damages.” (Citation omitted.)
Nash v. Studdard,
The evidence shows that Fireside knew that it did not have the equipment to pre-cut and pre-drill the type of logs ordered by the Wilcoxes, but accepted the order with the knowledge that it could not deliver on its promise to deliver pre-cut and pre-drilled logs. See
Lumpkin v. Deventer North America,
3. Fireside contends that the trial court erred by denying its motion for new trial on the grounds that the Wilcoxes received a double recovery. We disagree.
We have previously found that a party may “not recover for both breach of contract and fraud if the fraud related
purely
to the inducement to enter into the contract.” (Citation omitted; emphasis supplied.)
Tankersley v. Barker,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The Wilcoxes added Mahaffey and Leland Rhodes, a/k/a Rusty Rhodes, as additional parties. The Wilcoxes subsequently dismissed their claims against Rhodes without prejudice.
The jury was instructed, among other things, that they could measure damages for defective work based on the reasonable cost of correcting the defective work and, if a contracting party abandons his obligation, the reasonable cost of completion.
Fireside points out that on cross-examination Mr. Wilcox testified that it took seven months to complete Fireside’s work and that the amount of investment interest reported on the Wilcoxes’ tax return was only $166,915. It was up to the jury to resolve inconsistencies in the evidence.
Although the additional interest could have been awarded as consequential damages, the judgment on the jury’s verdict was not, as Fireside contends, a judgment “including interest” for purposes of
Bentley v.
Phillips,
The trial court did not bifurcate the proceeding on the issue of punitive damages as contemplated by OCGA § 51-12-5.1 (d). The parties expressly consented to the procedure followed by the trial court, and no error is raised on this account. See
Martin v. Williams,