Bee Window, Inc. v. Stough Enterprises, Inc.

Citations: 698 N.E.2d 328; 1998 Ind. App. LEXIS 1264; 1998 WL 455620Docket: 49A02-9706-CV-371

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; July 30, 1998; Indiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Bee Window, Inc. appealed a trial court's ruling that it breached a contract with Stough Enterprises, Inc. and Indianapolis Blood Plasma, Inc. for the installation of twenty-three windows at a building owned by Indianapolis Blood Plasma. The contract, valued at $37,585.00, was executed in 1983, with Bee Window responsible for fabricating and installing the windows using specific materials, including vinyl from Artek Industries. After installation, the windows exhibited significant defects; they rattled, leaked, and deflected during storms. Despite Stough’s complaints and withholding a $2,585.00 payment, Bee Window failed to remedy the issues. Consequently, Stough filed a breach of contract lawsuit in 1993, resulting in a bench trial where the court awarded Stough $45,615.00 in damages. 

Bee Window's appeal raised two issues: whether the trial court's finding of breach was clearly erroneous and if the damage award was supported by evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that its findings should not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. The court distinguished the case from a precedent involving a contractor not liable for following a client’s flawed specifications, noting that Stough did not dictate the use of vinyl framing. Instead, Bee Window had recommended the vinyl due to its purported advantages over aluminum, which Stough had initially sought. The contract indicated that the windows were to be fabricated according to the manufacturer's specifications, not those of Stough, reinforcing the court's ruling on breach of contract.

Bee Window's president testified that the company installed windows according to design specifications provided by Artek and agreed to by Stough. The trial court had discretion to accept or reject this testimony. It was established that Stough did not provide technical specifications, and the parties agreed that Bee Window would supply windows for twenty-three openings, which were expected to function properly. However, the installed windows exhibited significant defects, including leaks, pressure instability, non-compliance with building codes, and a dangerous risk of shattering, which led the trial court to rule that Bee Window breached its contract with Stough.

Bee Window contested the $45,615.00 damage award as excessive, arguing that the trial court should account for Stough's thirteen years of beneficial use of the defective windows. Stough countered that the windows were a liability and emphasized that Bee Window had retained its $35,000.00 payment during that period while failing to remedy the situation after being notified of the defects. The court noted that a damage award is not considered excessive unless it appears based on improper factors. The award must be supported by evidence, and the trial court based its decision on a proposal to replace the windows for $48,220.00, deducting $2,585.00 owed on the original contract to arrive at the final award. The court determined that the defective replacement windows had no value and posed significant liability risks. Bee Window's claim regarding the cost of replacement windows was unsupported by evidence of lower alternatives. The damage award was affirmed, with a minor discrepancy in figures noted but deemed inconsequential. Affirmed. HOFFMAN and RUCKER, JJ. concur.