Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
LLLL Construction Co. v. Mehlburger, Tanner, Renshaw & Associates, Inc.
Citations: 16 Ark. App. 267; 702 S.W.2d 29; 1985 Ark. App. LEXIS 2230Docket: CA 85-31
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; December 11, 1985; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
In June 1980, Nell and George Stewart suffered injuries when toxic chlorine gas entered their home during a construction project by Mount Holly Water Association. The Stewarts sued LLLL Construction Company, the general contractor, and Tom Loftin, the subcontractor, for negligence. Loftin filed a third-party complaint against Mehlburger, Tanner, Renshaw & Associates, the project engineers, who counterclaimed against LLLL Construction based on an indemnity agreement for claims related to their work, including attorney's fees. Mount Holly also sought indemnification from LLLL Construction for related expenses. The jury found the Stewarts were entitled to damages from LLLL Construction and Loftin, but determined that Mount Holly and Mehlburger were not negligent. Subsequently, Mehlburger and Mount Holly sought indemnity from LLLL Construction for their attorney’s fees and expenses. LLLL Construction contended that the indemnity issue had been waived. The trial court, however, ruled that the indemnity issue had been reserved for determination after the jury's verdict. The court awarded attorney’s fees to Mehlburger and Mount Holly, leading LLLL Construction to appeal, arguing that reopening the trial for the indemnity issue was erroneous. The appellees maintained that there was no waiver, as all parties had agreed to reserve the indemnity claims for post-verdict proceedings. The trial court acknowledged this agreement during a hearing, emphasizing the necessity to determine indemnity after resolving negligence and damages. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to bifurcate the trial under Rule 42(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, as it aimed to reduce confusion and prejudice given the complexity of the case involving multiple parties and claims. LLLL Construction's assertion of a lack of record supporting bifurcation discussions was rejected, affirming the trial court's decision. The original record does not document an agreement regarding the bifurcation of trial issues, but it is acknowledged that an unrecorded pre-trial conference took place. The trial court found that indemnity claims were discussed during both the trial and possibly at the pre-trial conference. The court concluded that there was a mutual understanding to submit the indemnity issues for resolution after the jury's verdict. This decision supplemented the record, countering the appellant’s argument on appeal regarding the absence of a recorded agreement for bifurcation. The appellant also claimed that the trial court erred under Rule 7(c) of the Uniform Rules for Circuit and Chancery Courts, which requires agreements to be documented, but the appellate court noted that the agreement involved both parties' counsel and the court, rendering Rule 7(c) inapplicable. The appellate court upheld the trial court's discretion in bifurcating the trial and deciding on indemnity claims post-verdict. The court affirmed the decision, with judges Cloninger and Mayfield concurring. Additionally, the appellant's new claim regarding a violation of Rule 60 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure was not considered, as it was not raised in the lower court.