Hawkins and Nesbitt Contracting, Inc. appeals a September 26, 2012, order from the Circuit Court of Upshur County, which denied its motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial after a jury awarded $10,000 to defendants Keith and Heather Queen. The construction company, represented by counsel, entered into a contract on May 19, 2010, to build a 40' x 60' addition to the Queens' home for $39,385, of which they paid $29,385. The respondents withheld the remaining $10,000 due to dissatisfaction with the construction quality.
The Queens counterclaimed, citing breaches of contract related to the construction's quality. At trial, they presented evidence, including testimony from an expert witness, Franklin Kyle, who identified various construction deficiencies, such as improperly installed girder trusses, walls not plumb, and an aesthetically unpleasing roof line. The expert stated that these issues should have been detected and corrected by the petitioner during construction. The Court found no substantial legal questions or prejudicial errors in the trial proceedings, leading to a decision to uphold the jury's verdict despite the respondents' failure to file a responsive brief.
The beams for the addition were inadequately shimmed to support the house's load, leading Mr. Kyle to characterize the petitioner’s work as "very poor" and estimate repair costs at $20,000. On May 29, 2012, a jury ruled in favor of the respondents on their counterclaim against the petitioner, awarding $10,000 in damages. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial, which the circuit court denied on September 26, 2012. The appeal that followed addressed the standard of review for such motions under West Virginia law, emphasizing a de novo review for judgments as a matter of law and an abuse of discretion standard for new trial motions. The appellate court noted that while the trial court's decisions are respected, they may be reversed if based on a misapprehension of law or evidence. The petitioner argued that the jury's verdict implied a break-even situation, as respondents allegedly owed $10,000 under the contract. However, this reasoning was dismissed as it overlooked that the respondents' counterclaim for breach of contract was the basis for the trial, where the jury found in favor of respondents regarding the petitioner's deficient construction work.
The circuit court correctly denied the petitioner’s motion due to evidence showing that the petitioner breached the contract through poor workmanship, resulting in additional repair costs for the respondents. In accordance with state law, damages for construction defects can be recovered based on the cost of repairs needed to meet the contract's standards. An expert testified that repairing the defects would cost $20,000, supporting the jury's verdict favoring the respondents. The petitioner’s claim regarding the confusion of the verdict form was dismissed; the court ruled that the jury instructions were within the circuit court's discretion and did not mislead the jury. Overall, the circuit court's decisions were affirmed, as the trial was fair and the jury was properly instructed. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Upshur County was upheld.
