Alexander Contracting Company, Inc. v. Sauer, Inc.

Eleventh Circuit

Alexander Contracting Company, Inc. v. Sauer, Inc.

671 F. App'x 752

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedDecember 5, 2016

Docket15-13668

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 671 F. App'x 752 (Alexander Contracting Company, Inc. v. Sauer, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander Contracting Company, Inc. v. Sauer, Inc., 671 F. App'x 752 (11th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case arose out of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers roadway construction project at Fort Benning, Georgia. Sauer, Inc., was the Corps’ general contractor; Aexander Contracting Co. and Hydro-Green were Sauer’s paving subcontractors, and Jacobs Engineering, Inc., was the engineer Sauer employed to design the project.

This appeal involves Aexander and Hydro-Green’s claim that Jacobs negligently misrepresented the thickness of the pavement that the Corps’ contract with Sauer *753 required. They alleged that, in bidding for the paving work, they relied on Jacobs’ representation* that the paving would consist of 4.5 inches of asphalt, instead of the six inches of asphalt as the Corps’ specifications required. Consequently, their bids for the paving work, which Sauer accepted, were too low and they had to absorb the cost of the additional 1.5 inches of asphalt. The jury found that Jacobs made the negligent misrepresentation alleged, that Alexander and Hydro-Green reasonably relied on it to their detriment, and that their losses amounted to $356,664 and $114,311 respectively, and therefore assessed their damages in those amounts.

Jacobs moved the District Court for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), arguing that Alexander and Hydro-Green were required to prove professional negligence and had failed to do so, and that they had failed to prove Jacobs had misrepresented a material fact which Alexander and Hydro-Green had reasonably relied on to their’ detriment. Jacobs moved the court to provide on the verdict form submitted to the jury for apportionment of damages between Jacobs and Sauer. The court denied Jacobs’ motion. Jacobs challenges these dispositions in this appeal.

After entertaining oral argument and considering the parties’ briefs, .we find no error in the District Court’s denial of Jacobs’ motion. The evidence was plainly sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and the denial of Rule 50(b) relief. As for the apportionment issue, we discern no misapplication of Georgia law. Because Georgia’s apportionment statute, Ga. Code § 51-12-33, requires the trier-of-fact to apportion damages only in cases involving injury to person or property, the statute does not require apportionment in this case. See City of Atlanta v. Benator, 310 Ga.App. 597, 714 S.E.2d 109, 117 (2011).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This case arose out of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers roadway construction project at Fort Benning, Georgia. Sauer, Inc., was the Corps’ general contractor; Aexander Contracting Co. and Hydro-Green were Sauer’s paving subcontractors, and Jacobs Engineering, Inc., was the engineer Sauer employed to design the project.

This appeal involves Aexander and Hydro-Green’s claim that Jacobs negligently misrepresented the thickness of the pavement that the Corps’ contract with Sauer *753 required. They alleged that, in bidding for the paving work, they relied on Jacobs’ representation* that the paving would consist of 4.5 inches of asphalt, instead of the six inches of asphalt as the Corps’ specifications required. Consequently, their bids for the paving work, which Sauer accepted, were too low and they had to absorb the cost of the additional 1.5 inches of asphalt. The jury found that Jacobs made the negligent misrepresentation alleged, that Alexander and Hydro-Green reasonably relied on it to their detriment, and that their losses amounted to $356,664 and $114,311 respectively, and therefore assessed their damages in those amounts.

Jacobs moved the District Court for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), arguing that Alexander and Hydro-Green were required to prove professional negligence and had failed to do so, and that they had failed to prove Jacobs had misrepresented a material fact which Alexander and Hydro-Green had reasonably relied on to their’ detriment. Jacobs moved the court to provide on the verdict form submitted to the jury for apportionment of damages between Jacobs and Sauer. The court denied Jacobs’ motion. Jacobs challenges these dispositions in this appeal.

After entertaining oral argument and considering the parties’ briefs, .we find no error in the District Court’s denial of Jacobs’ motion. The evidence was plainly sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and the denial of Rule 50(b) relief. As for the apportionment issue, we discern no misapplication of Georgia law. Because Georgia’s apportionment statute, Ga. Code § 51-12-33, requires the trier-of-fact to apportion damages only in cases involving injury to person or property, the statute does not require apportionment in this case. See City of Atlanta v. Benator, 310 Ga.App. 597, 714 S.E.2d 109, 117 (2011).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 F. App'x 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-contracting-company-inc-v-sauer-inc-ca11-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack