In a case of first
impression, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals weighed in on how a
trial court should adjust a jury verdict against a contractor when two critical
components are still at play: (1) a setoff from other liable parties and (2) a clause
in the contract limiting liability. In
short, the court concluded
the correct approach is to first apply the setoff against the jury verdict and
then apply the contractual limitation against the recoverable amount.
The
facts in Taylor
Morrison of Colorado, Inc. v. Terracon Consultants, Inc., 2017 COA 64, highlight the massive
difference in what order the court factors in the setoff from the contractual
liability. In this case, Taylor Morrison
of Colorado, Inc. (“Taylor Morrison”), was the developer of a residential
subdivision. Terracon Consultants, Inc.
(“Terracon”) was the geotechnical engineering firm which performed services at
the project. In a written contract, Terracon was responsible for testing the
soil for compliance with project specifications and building codes. Taylor
Morrison and Terracon further agreed to place a cap on Terracon’s total
liability to Taylor Morrison at $550,000 for any and all damages or expenses
arising out of its services or the contract.
Several years after Terracon
performed its work, the homeowners sued Taylor Morrison alleging cracks in the
drywall of their houses, and Taylor Morrison in turn sued Terracon and various subcontractors
for damages relating to those defects. Among
other reasons, Taylor Morrison attempted to void the limitation of liability
clause on the ground that Terracon’s conduct was willful and wanton. The court dismissed Terracon after it depositing
$550,000 in the court registry. Taylor
Morrison proceeded to trial against other subcontractors and settled for
$592,000 with remaining subcontractors.
Taylor Morrison appealed the court’s
dismissal of its willful and wanton claim Terracon on the ground that it should
have been allowed to introduce evidence of Terracon’s willful and wanton conduct
so as to void the limitation of liability clause. The appellate court remanded the case to
determine whether Taylor Morrison should have been allowed to introduce such
evidence. The trial court concluded that
Taylor Morrison should have been able to, so it ordered a new trial against
Terracon alone. At the trial, the jury
awarded Taylor Morrison $9,586,056 in damages.
Despite the large verdict, after reviewing post-trial briefings, the
court entered a final judgment of zero dollars due from Terracon to Taylor
Morrison.
The trial court arrived at this
result by applying the contractual limitation of liability to reduce the jury
verdict of $9,586,056 down to the limitation of $550,000. Finally, it then deducted the $592,500 setoff
from the prior settlement from the other parties against the $550,000 to arrive
at zero dollars owed.
Taylor Morrison appealed again and
contended that the trial court erroneously deducted the $592,500 setoff from
Terracon’s contractual limitation of liability of $550,000 rather than
deducting the setoff from the $9,586,056 jury damages verdict. The appellate court agreed.
Consequently, the court concluded
that the trial court must first apply the setoff against the jury verdict to
ascertain the allowable amount of recovery, and then apply any contractual
limitation against this reduced amount.
“This approach prevents double recovery by the plaintiff, preserves the
parties’ right to have the terms of a contract enforced, and best gives effect
to the jury verdict.” Taylor, 2017 COA 64, ¶ 25.
In application, this would mean the
court should have applied the $592,500 setoff to the $9,586,057 jury
verdict. This would have resulted in a
new total of $8,993,556. The trial court
then should have applied limitation of liability and reached a final judgment
of $550,000 due from Terracon to Taylor Morrison. The Court of Appeals remanded the case back
to the trial court to enter this new judgment.

No comments:
Post a Comment