Callaway v. Roberts Electrical Contractors, Inc.
Docket: No. 96-78
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 23, 1996; Florida; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made regarding the trial court's denial of H.D. Callaway's breach of contract claim against Roberts Electrical Contractors, Inc. The contract required Callaway to assist Roberts with an Impact and Delay Claim on a project, stipulating that he would receive either 10% or 15% of Roberts’ gross recovery based on the resolution method (settlement or litigation). Callaway assisted Roberts, who initially pursued the claim against their general contractor, Lord. Son Construction. After mediation failed, the claim was resolved in arbitration in Roberts' favor. Callaway sought payment as outlined in the contract, but Roberts refused, leading to Callaway's lawsuit. The trial court denied the claim, interpreting the contract to stipulate that Callaway's payment depended on his assistance directly leading to Roberts' recovery. This interpretation was rejected by the appellate court, which found the contract’s language clear and unambiguous, mandating payment for assistance provided regardless of the outcome. The appellate court concluded that since Callaway did indeed provide assistance, he was entitled to payment. The court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for judgment in favor of Callaway. Additionally, it clarified that “gross recovery” does not encompass costs and attorney fees. The judges, BARFIELD, C.J. and BOOTH and BENTON, JJ., concurred.